In a significant development for labor relations and trademark law, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived Trader Joe’s legal challenge against its employee union, Trader Joe’s United. The ruling, handed down unanimously on September 8, 2025, sends ripples through both corporate and labor law communities, reinforcing the power of brand protection—even in contentious organizing environments.
Case Background: A Battle Over Branding and Union Rights
Trader Joe’s, based in Monrovia, California, filed a lawsuit in 2023 alleging that union-branded merchandise—including t-shirts, buttons, mugs, and reusable tote bags—bore a striking resemblance to its distinctive red typestyle, logo, and design elements, potentially misleading consumers into believing these items were officially endorsed by the grocer.
In January 2024, U.S. District Judge Hernan Vera had dismissed the case, characterizing the union’s design as “fair use” and critical of Trader Joe’s for using litigation as leverage in a labor dispute. Judge Vera did not hesitate to suggest that the lawsuit served as an attempt to “weaponize the legal system” and pressured the company to compensate the union with over $100,000 in attorney fees for filing an “exceptionally weak” case.
Appeals Court’s Reversal: Key Reasoning and Implications
The 9th Circuit panel, sitting in Pasadena, overturned Judge Vera’s ruling, unanimously asserting that the lawsuit had legal merit. Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez emphasized that the union’s designs were “strikingly similar” to Trader Joe’s visual branding—featuring red color, reminiscent fonts, and concentric circles—creating a plausible risk of consumer confusion. Importantly, Trader Joe’s itself sells tote bags, enhancing the potential for mistaken attribution.
Judge Sanchez stated plainly, “This is not one of the rare trademark infringement cases in which there is no plausible likelihood that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused.”
The decision reversed the earlier dismissal and remanded the case back to Judge Vera’s court for further proceedings. This ruling underscores that even in the context of union advocacy, trademark laws can be robustly enforced if branding overlap is significant and measurable.
Broader Significance: Where Branding and Labor Rights Intersect
This legal tug-of-war illuminates a complicated intersection between union activity and trademark rights. On one hand, the union asserts its right to freedom of expression and supports its organizing efforts via branded merchandise. On the other, Trader Joe’s contends that such use infringes on its brand identity and could mislead consumers.
Beyond this specific dispute, the case reinforces how aggressively—and strategically—companies can deploy intellectual property protections, even against labor organizations. It also signals that courts may prioritize consumer clarity and corporate branding rights over unions’ expressive or promotional tactics when evaluated under trademark law.
What Lies Ahead: Next Legal Steps
Now that the case is back in district court, JDJournal will monitor developments closely. Expect both parties to submit more comprehensive evidence: the union will likely emphasize the distinguishing elements of its designs, while Trader Joe’s will pursue demonstrable confusion or brand dilution. Given the appellate court’s assessment, the company now appears to hold the upper hand in this procedural saga.
Takeaway for Legal Practitioners and Business Leaders
- Trademark Vigilance Matters
Even in heated labor disputes, brand protection can remain a compelling and enforceable corporate strategy. - Design Nuance Is Crucial
Courts evaluate color schemes, fonts, visual motifs, and product overlap—especially where both parties operate in similar product spaces. - Strategic Use of Litigation
Lawyer-litigated fronts may help shape organizing or negotiation leverage—but also carry reputational risks. Courts will assess the underlying intent alongside the trademark claim. - Union Merchandise Isn’t Automatically Safe
Just because an item is meant for awareness or advocacy doesn’t shield it from trademark scrutiny—especially when branding cues are nearly identical.
Conclusion: A Case That Sets Precedent
With the appeals court reigniting the dispute, JDJournal reaffirms the importance of legal precision in matters that bridge IP and labor dynamics. This case may well influence how future legal strategies are crafted—particularly for companies guarding their image during union negotiations.
Stay tuned for updates as we track how the district court navigates this renewed legal challenge. If you’d like analytical breakdowns, historical comparisons, or briefs on how employers or unions can prepare defensively for similar conflicts, JDJournal is ready to facilitate those insights.
