Trader Joe’s, the well-loved grocery chain filed suit against Trader Joe, a crypto exchange website, on October 5. The grocer is suing for a variety of federal trademark claims based on its word mark Trader Joe’s that is very similar to the name of the cyrpto exchange company as well as its domain name.  

What is a trademark and does Trader Joe’s have one?

A valid trademark is anything used in commerce on goods or services that identifies & distinguishes those goods or services from others; in other words, the trademark indicates that the goods and services come from a specific source. The mark in question is the word mark “Trader Joe’s”.

What is Cybersquatting?

Cybersquatting is when a person or entity registers a domain name that is the same or similar to an existing trademark in bad faith with intent to profit. There are statutory factors that suggest cybersquatting.

One example of someone acting in bad faith in this context could be registering a domain name so similar to another’s that try to divert consumers who accidentally type it in and purchase from their website instead of the original. Another example of bad faith is where someone registers a domain name so similar to another’s to convince the original trademark owner to pay them to return the domain name. Trader Joe’s alleges that the Crypto company’s registered domain name, traderjoexyz.com, is too similar to traderjoes.com.

Origins of the Original Cybersquatting Claim

Trader Joe’s had previously urged the owner of the site to stop using Trader Joe’s in their domain name. It filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Arbitration and Mediation Center. This offers alternative dispute resolution, meaning something outside traditional court systems for companies to resolve disputes. In particular, WIPO claims to be “the global leader in resolving cases of ‘cybersquatting’ . . . to reclaim a domain name that unfairly targets your trademark.”

So, Trader Joe’s filing here to force the site to stop using its domain name, traderjoexyz.com seems reasonable.

WIPO Denies Trader Joe’s Cybersquatting Claim

During the WIPO proceeding , the crypto company stated that it had named the company after the founder’s brother, Joe, and was not a play on Trader Joe’s. Ultimately WIPO accepted this reasoning and denied Trader Joe’s complaint. This led to the court case in which Trader Joe’s claims that this representation was false.

In the complaint, Trader Joe’s also alleges the cyrpto company is liable for federal dilution by blurring as well as tarnishment, both of which are claims that apply to famous marks.

Dilution by Blurring

Dilution by blurring occurs when a trademark may reduce a famous mark’s distinctiveness. When we think about, say, CVS, everyone’s mind immediately goes to the convenience store chain. There is inherent power in being such a distinct name in consumers’ minds. In this example, if a different entity uses ‘CVS’ in a different industry, it ‘dilutes’ the power of the brand.

The complaint states that Trader Joe’s marks are distinctive and famous. And, that the defendant’s use of the “Trader Joe” name impairs the distinctiveness of the “Trader Joe’s” mark, and therefore are liable for dilution by blurring. It further diluted the distinctiveness of Trader Joe’s mark when it used produce and marketplace imaging on its website as seen here.

Dilution by Tarnishment

Trader Joe’s also alleges that the Crypto company is liable for dilution by tarnishment. Dilution by tarnishment arises when a mark is linked to products of shoddy quality or is portrayed in an unwholeseome, unsavory context. Trader Joe’s stated that the ‘Trader Joe’ company participated in “unscrupulous and unlawful activities” and had “low quality goods”. The grocer claims the public associating it with the crypto company’s product would diminish its reputation.

What’s Next for Trader Joe’s-Trader Joe Debacle?

It will be interesting to see whether the courts find Trader Joe’s arguments persuasive. While it does seem a bit suspect that the crypto company had no intention to play on the grocer’s fame when coming up with its brand, at the end of the day it is up to the court to decide.

Natalie Allen
Associate Blogger
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2025