Ninth Circuit Revives Trader Joe’s Trademark Suit Against Employee Union

Los Angeles: The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived Trader Joe’s trademark lawsuit against its employee union, reversing a January 2024 dismissal and remanding the case to U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera. In a unanimous 3-0 opinion authored by U.S. Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez on Sept. 8, 2025, the court cited case No. 24-2826, 2025 WL 2586674, and concluded the pleadings plausibly alleged a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Trader Joe’s filed the trademark suit after Trader Joe’s United, described in a LinkedIn post as created in 2022 with four local chapters, sold union‑branded merchandise on its website including t-shirts, buttons, mugs, reusable tote bags and other accessories. Brandprotection Law and other reporting say the union’s 2023 sales included tote bags, mugs and buttons that Trader Joe’s alleged mimicked the chain’s distinctive red typeface, capitalized lettering and logo styling.

The Central District of California had dismissed the complaint in January 2024. U.S. District Judge Hernán Vera wrote that he “failed to see ‘compelling similarities in any of the designs’” and noted differences and that the union’s accessories were sold only on its website. Judge Vera also reasoned that “Courts have often found that a labor union’s use of an employer’s trademark as part of communications about the employer’s labor practices is unlikely to cause confusion in context,” and he ordered Trader Joe’s to pay $112,622.12 in attorneys’ fees.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding the district court was “too quick to dismiss” and that factual development was required. “To begin, Trader Joe’s and TJU’s marks are strikingly similar,” Judge Sanchez wrote, and the opinion observed that “the name ‘Trader Joe’s’ in both parties’ marks uses capitalized lettering, the same red color and similarly stylized fonts, and both marks are found within concentric circles.” LaborRelationsUpdate summarized the panel’s application of Ninth Circuit multifactor precedent, saying the court found three factors plausibly favored Trader Joe’s: the strength of Trader Joe’s trademarks, the relatedness of the union’s merchandise to Trader Joe’s ancillary goods, and the similarity of the marks.

The appeals court also addressed defenses and remedies. LaborRelationsUpdate notes the panel said the union never asserted a nominative fair use defense, and the Ninth Circuit held the trial court should not have dismissed Trader Joe’s dilution claim on that basis. The panel vacated the district court’s fee award of roughly $112,600, corresponding to the $112,622.12 ordered below, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Trader Joe’s placed a photograph-style comparison in its complaint, excerpted by MetNews, showing a tote bag sold in Trader Joe’s stores alongside a tote the union offered on its website, and the complaint warned, “Unauthorized use of Trader Joe’s valuable trademarks on merchandise sold to the general public is irreparably harming and, unless enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm, Trader Joe’s and its trademarks, business, reputation, and goodwill.”

The Ninth Circuit’s revival leaves open litigation over factual proof of consumer confusion, the scope of any fair-use defenses, and whether injunctive relief is appropriate. The case returns to the Central District of California before Judge Hernán D. Vera for further proceedings consistent with the Sept. 8, 2025 appellate opinion.