Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 10/20/2017 8:47 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Whatever happens, I'm sure the idiot mass-mentality netizens will make
> >> a big deal out of it and give them bad reviews for no good reason,
> >> because it makes them feel like they're the "in crowd".Â* That's what
> >> Social Media is for - for solving REAL problems.
> >>
> >> -sw
> >>
> > But Steve, wasn't there some store in Canada that was buying stuff at a
> > US Costco and reselling them and you Costco got up in arms about it? How
> > is this different?
> >
> > Jill
>
> I don't recall the situation with Costco, but how is this different from
> a diner serving pie they bought from a local bakery? Order a dessert of
> pie and icecream and chances re it was just assembled from purchased
> parts, just like the chicken and waffles.
>
> Costco is opening stores in Canada so they probably did not want
> competition from the store but that is just a guess.


Guys, that was a "Trader Joe's Situation":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Joe%27s

"Pirate Joe's was a specialty grocery store in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, owned by Michael Hallatt. Its inventory consists entirely of store brand products resold from locations of the U.S.-based grocery chain Trader Joe's, which does not operate any locations in Canada. Despite the high costs of operating the store because of its business model, the store became popular with residents who enjoyed the opportunity to purchase some of the distinct private label products offered by Trader Joe's.

Although he has asserted that the business was legal, Hallatt's operation drew the ire of the Trader Joe's company, and the shop eventually became the subject of a lawsuit filed by the company in May 2013, which claimed that the Pirate Joe's shop was infringing on its trademarks and damaging its reputation.

Hallatt chose to fight for his business model in court while continuing to operate the store, and has so far prevailed; a judge ruled that Hallatt could not be convicted under US trademark law because the alleged infringements did not occur within the country. Trader Joe's was not able to prove the business was causing them any harm, and it was determined that they were in fact benefiting since all products were purchased from their stores at full retail price.

[...]

In October 2013, Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed the case, ruling that Trader Joe's did not provide sufficient evidence of any economic harm caused by the operation, and that Hallatt could not be held liable under the Lanham Act because the alleged trademark infringements did not occur within the United States.

In August 2016, the dismissal was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that a U.S. court does have authority to hear the case, sending the case back to the district court.[8]

On June 8, 2017, Pirate Joe's announced that it was closing its doors because the ongoing lawsuit was simply too expensive..."