IFBA, HAS, and IEG Asia partner to strengthen SIGEP Asia 2025, focusing on innovation, collaboration, and industry transformation

Trader Joe’s Ruling Indicates Stronger Legal Standing for Trademark Plaintiffs

Trader Joe’s “United” Case: A Shift Toward Greater Protection for Trademark Plaintiffs

Trader Joe’s filed a lawsuit over the use of “Trader Joe’s United” by a labor union, arguing that the phrase was being used commercially in a way that could mislead consumers into believing the union’s merchandise was affiliated with the grocery chain. The lower court dismissed the case, viewing the claims as baseless and politically motivated. However, the appellate court reversed that dismissal, stating that it was too early in the process to decide the merits of the trademark claims.

A Broader Judicial Trend

This decision aligns with a growing judicial trend favoring plaintiffs in early-stage trademark disputes. Courts are increasingly reluctant to dismiss trademark cases outright, preferring instead to let them proceed to a fuller examination of the facts.
The Ninth Circuit has followed this approach in multiple cases, including the 2018 “Honey Badger Don’t Care” trademark dispute, where it reinstated claims dismissed under the fair use doctrine. Similarly, other circuits have reversed early dismissals, such as the Second Circuit’s 2013 ruling concerning Oprah Winfrey’s use of “Own Your Power” and the Fifth Circuit’s 2006 decision reinstating claims against Converse by college fraternities and sororities.

This pro-plaintiff momentum has strengthened since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, which narrowed the scope of the First Amendment-based Rogers defense. As a result, defendants now face higher hurdles to have cases dismissed early on expressive-use grounds.

The Implications of the Trader Joe’s Ruling

In Trader Joe’s case, the appellate court found that the lower court overstepped by dismissing the suit based on a defense the union never formally raised—nominative fair use. The appeals panel ruled that the question of whether the union’s “Trader Joe’s United” branding confused consumers was a factual matter requiring further examination, not an issue to be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court also introduced the idea of “initial interest confusion”—where consumers might be misled at first glance into thinking the union’s merchandise is tied to Trader Joe’s, even if that confusion is resolved later. Similarly, post-sale confusion could occur if observers mistakenly assume that items bearing the “Trader Joe’s United” label were produced by the grocery chain.

In reversing the dismissal and the $100,000 attorney fee award against Trader Joe’s, the appellate court signaled that even when lower courts view cases as weak or retaliatory, they must still allow the claims to move forward if factual issues remain unresolved.

Key Lessons

The ruling underscores two central points. First, early dismissals in trademark cases are becoming less common, as courts increasingly favor letting disputes be decided on their factual merits. Second, it highlights the procedural importance of preserving defenses and arguments from the outset—something that both the union in this case and VIP Products in the Jack Daniel’s case failed to do.

Ultimately, Trader Joe’s v. Trader Joe’s United reflects the judiciary’s growing inclination to allow trademark cases to proceed past preliminary hurdles. The message is clear: plaintiffs now have a stronger chance of having their day in court, while defendants must prepare to defend their claims through full litigation rather than relying on early procedural wins.