Just so we are on the same page first-sale doctrine applies to works with copyright (i.e. You buy my book you have a right to resell or display it) it does not apply to consumable goods/food stuffs. Almost any reasonable person can understand practical limits of resale rights: think reselling your prescription opiates claiming first-sale doctrine.

And no just because Trader Joe's products have TJ trademarks does not mean they are covered by first-sale doctrine, they are still food stuffs. Trademark under first sale-doctrine is more applicable to reselling a professional sports jersey containing the trademark logo/colors of the team.

This is false. The first sale doctrine can be summarized as, once I have physical possession of an item I can resell it.

Do not confuse issues around distributorships, which are contracts that say, I will agree to sell you these goods at wholesale prices so long as you agree not to sell them anywhere I say you can't.

Your example with reselling prescription opiates, is that opiates are a controlled substance, food is not.

Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods.

Pirate Joes' core business was perfectly legal in the US. The only way trademark could be a problem is that Pirate Joes might be ruled too close to Trader Joes, and that's the trademark of the business, not the trademark of the items for sale in the store.

>Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods.

That is wrong, according to the case law. Facts here are very different bc TJ product is backed by the TJ guarantee; therefore, although identical TJ product when PJ sells it, it is "materially different" because PJ doesn't back the TJ product. That material change is a trademark violation, especially where PJ is advertising they buy/resell TJ product (impossible and confusing to customers).

Simply look up the case law when first sale doctrine does not apply as a result of material changes to the product because the change in warranty/customer service inherently tied to the product/brand.

Seems quite a stretch to include the store's return policy in the identity of the "product".

So there is no confusion, I'm not making a arguement out of thin air, this is the case law.

Here is a decent article [1]published by the American Bar Association regarding the resale of "genuine" goods (not counterfeit) by unauthorized retailers. Skip to the "warranty policy and unauthorized dealer page" section, then "going to court".

Note the exceptions to first sale doctrine include "material changes" to the trademark good, including non physical changes, then does a decent job of listing those changes recorgnized by the courts.

[1] https://www.americanbar.org/publications/blt/2014/07/01_payn...

Edit: from article regarding non-physical changes to trademark product, "Perhaps most commonly, differences in warranty protection coverage between authorized and unauthorized sales often lead to trademark infringement"

Oh, I'm not surprised at all that it's in the law, like so many other flights of fancy.

No, you're just incorrect here.

Transfer of prescription medication is a different matter, and these are controlled substances with specific rules around transfer. If you happened to be a pharmacist and happened to have someone with a prescription for a drug, there are some scenarios where you could transfer them.

If you give me an apple, I have no obligation to eat or destroy the apple. I'm free to give it to anyone I wish, either as a whole or in parts.

The first-sale doctrine does not include an exception for food.

Reselling your prescription opiates is prohibited by specific laws. No such law exists for food.

First-sale doctrine is not limited to works of copyright. That's just what's most in the news.

Patented inventions for example can be resold or even incorporated into other devices which are then sold and you don't get to control such things.

First sale doctrine also applies to trademarked goods. Here's a good example of a similar case examining how first sale doctrine applies to trademarks: http://www.theiplawblog.com/2009/12/articles/trademark-law/w...

Definitely seems like a gray area, but the deciding factor appears to be how likely a customer is to confuse the reseller with the original manufacturer. Given the name of the store was "Pirate Joe's", and they in fact played up the idea that they were an unauthorized reseller, it seems like that confusion would be highly unlikely.

First-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works. Deed restrictions are an example where someone can sell property with conditions on its use.

Real estate is the only type of property I'm aware of that allows the owner to enter into covenants that "run with the property." As of yet, I haven't heard about any exceptions. Software licensors have tried, but so far haven't been successful AFAIK.

The Supreme Court reinforced these doctrines just a week ago (in a patent case, but the same principles apply), ruling against Lexmark printer cartridge restrictions "that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose."

First-sale doctrine also applies to trademarks which is what would be at issue here. The doctrine allows reselling of trademarked products.