The Smucker’s-Trader Joe’s Dispute and the Law of Look-Alikes
BY ALLISON FOREMAN, PRIYANKA MENON, AND GREGORY PHILLIPS
A PB&J sandwich is one of America’s simplest comfort foods: peanut butter, jelly, two slices of bread, and you are done. In the 1970s, it was the classic school lunch—packed in a metal lunchbox adorned with superheroes, cartoon characters, or celebrity actors or singers. In the mid-1990s, though, someone figured out how to turn that everyday comfort into a freezer-aisle convenience product, and in 1999, the concept went mainstream when Smucker’s acquired a small brand that became “Uncrustables.” Today, several other vendors sell frozen, crustless PB&J sandwiches (the authors counted at least eight brands online),11 Great Value, Clean Eatz Protein Peanut Butter & Jelly, Jamwich, 7‑Eleven, Red’s, Lunchables, PF3, and Target. but Uncrustables is still the one most people can name—thanks to the recognizable branding.
Recently, Smucker’s sued Trader Joe’s for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and related claims. Smucker’s says it does not take issue with others selling prepackaged, frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwiches, but it cannot allow others to use its IP to make such sales.22 ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 3, The J.M. Smucker’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 25CV2181 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2025). The dispute highlights that in industries where product differentiation is subtle, branding choices often carry the greatest risk. Trader Joe’s has responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss Smucker’s trademark dilution claim and requested to change the venue from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to Central California.
So what exactly did Trader Joe’s do that is different from all those other frozen crustless PB&J sandwich makers? Is Smucker’s trying to monopolize the frozen crustless PB&J sandwich market?
Market Power Without Monopoly
A patent is an IP right that protects an idea or process by temporarily blocking competitors from making or selling the same product. One of Smucker’s early patents covering a method for making a crustless, sealed sandwich with crimped edges was invalidated through a third-party challenge, and its later attempts to patent a frozen grilled cheese sandwich and a high protein PB&J didn’t succeed either.33 Sealed Crustless Sandwich, U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596 (issued Dec. 21, 1999). Smucker’s does, however, still hold multiple design patents covering the ornamental appearance of sandwiches like Uncrustables.44 Smucker’s holds four design patents—D695,994 (issued Dec. 24, 2013); D712,621; D712,622; and D712,623 (last three issued Sept. 9, 2014)—that generally cover a round sandwich with an undulating, crimped edge. In addition, Smucker’s owns two design patents for non‑circular sandwich designs. Design patent D854,780 (issued July 30, 2019) covers a round sandwich with a hexagonal crimped edge, while design patent D978,480 (issued Feb. 21, 2023) covers a heart‑shaped sandwich with a crimped edge. Instead of aggressively enforcing its design patents, Smucker’s has built its competitive advantage through branding: by developing a portfolio of trademarks that protect the Uncrustables name and related identifiers.
The Uncrustables Suite of Trademarks
Smucker’s claims trademark rights to various aspects of both the sandwich itself and its packaging, including (1) product configuration (the three-dimensional round sandwich with crimped edges), (2) packaging (including the image of a whole round sandwich, as well as a round sandwich with a bite taken out), (3) a design mark (a bitten sandwich character with eyes, brows, arms, and legs), and (4) the stylized blue-and-white Uncrustables mark.55 Smucker’s asserted registrations include U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2,623,577; 2,883,529; 5,941,408, 7,871,982; 7,799,903; 7,443,335.
Most brands start with the simplest and strongest form of trademark protection: the product name in standard characters. Think Uncrustables as plain text. That trademark registration is not tied to a particular font, style of presentation, or color, so it gives the owner broad latitude to display the mark in different typefaces and designs over time. But, broad does not always mean memorable. To build brand recognition, companies often use stylized versions of their marks, sometimes in distinctive colors, so consumers start to associate a particular “look” with a single source. The brand owner then seeks to register that stylized version. Smucker’s representation of the Uncrustables mark in a blue and white, stylized font is a classic example of that strategy.
For brand owners trying to claim even more territory, trademark law offers another tool: trade dress. Trade dress protects the overall visual impression that gives the product an identity—elements such as shape, color schemes, graphics, etc. There are two common forms. Product shape trade dress covers the three-dimensional design of the product itself, and it is protectable only when consumers have learned to recognize that design as emerging from a single source (i.e., acquired distinctiveness).66 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000). Product packaging trade dress, by contrast, focuses on how the product is packaged for sale and, in some cases, can be protected based on inherent distinctiveness, without the need to show acquired distinctiveness.77 Id. Either way, an important limit to trade dress is functionality—meaning brand owners cannot obtain trademark rights to features that are essential to how a product works or design choices competitors need to compete.88 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5).
The Look of Uncrustables
Smucker’s alleges that it designed its packaging for its frozen crustless PB&J sandwiches to create a recognizable look. Although the overall color of the packaging changes with the jelly flavor used inside the sandwiches, the Uncrustables brand appears in the same blue color, and there is often a picture of a sandwich with a bite taken out tucked into the corner of the box. Overall, the packaging also recognizes Smucker’s broader brand identity, incorporating the familiar gingham pattern associated with its jelly jars.
Why Trader Joe’s?
Why might Smucker’s have pursued a trademark infringement claim against Trader Joe’s, while the other eight vendors selling frozen crustless PB&J sandwiches we found online appear to have escaped a similar fate? Simply put, the other frozen crustless PB&J sandwiches that we found online do not offer a round-looking crimped-edge sandwich and do not feature the color blue in their branding and packaging. A few brands use crimped edges, but their sandwiches are not round. One vendor shows a crimped sandwich alongside the familiar “bite taken out” image, but the sandwich is square and the packaging does not feature blue. Trader Joe’s, on the other hand, may have edged closer to what Smucker’s considers is the protectable “look and feel” of its Uncrustables sandwich. Like the Smucker’s packaging, the Trader Joe’s packaging includes a sandwich with a bite taken out. While the text on the Trader Joe’s box differs in color, its overall design is dominated by blue, the signature color Smucker’s uses for its Uncrustables branding.
In its motion to dismiss, Trader Joe’s argues that its sandwiches are not actually round at all. Instead, it says they are “squircles”—squares with rounded corners, akin to the app icons on Apple phones and computers.99 ECF No. 10-1 at 7, Trader Joe’s Company’s Motion to Dismiss and/or to Transfer Venue, The J.M. Smucker’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 25CV2181 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2025). According to Trader Joe’s, that shape is functional because it mirrors the natural shape of a slice of bread without the crust, and Smucker’s cannot stop others from making crustless sandwiches just because they have some degree of roundness. And, for good measure, Trader Joe’s notes that consumers are unlikely to confuse its vegan sandwiches with Smucker’s products, which it claims contain hydrogenated oils and the preservative potassium sorbate.
Confusion in the Trader Joe’s Aisle
One could argue that Smucker’s claim of consumer confusion against Trader Joe’s sandwich is weak because consumers shopping at Trader Joe’s stores are less likely to encounter any brand other than Trader Joe’s brands, and what propels purchasing decisions is nothing other than Trader Joe’s name. In other words, unlike at Walmart or Safeway, where consumers routinely compare the same product across different brands, Trader Joe’s typically offers a single house-branded option, which, in theory, should reduce the likelihood of brand-to-brand confusion.
In its complaint, Smucker’s argues that Trader Joe’s unique business model makes confusion more likely. Specifically, Smucker’s alleges that Trader Joe’s private-label strategy, avoiding national brands in favor of Trader Joe’s-branded products sourced directly from manufacturers, amplifies consumer confusion because it assumes a common source. Put differently: if shoppers know that Trader Joe’s sells store-brand versions made by the same companies that manufacture name-brand goods, is it a stretch to think they might assume the round, crimped-edge sandwiches come from the same maker just in different boxes? Smucker’s complaint even includes screenshots of social media posts of consumers making that kind of inference. In this context, it is interesting to note that Smucker’s does have presumed valid, incontestable, and enforceable trademark registrations on a round sandwich with crimped edges, which it claims consumers have come to associate with its Uncrustables brand.
That said, Trader Joe’s jab about Smucker’s ingredients is not entirely beside the point. Over the years, Trader Joe’s has cultivated a loyal following for products often perceived as cleaner and free from artificial ingredients. While product quality or ingredients are not standalone factors in a confusion analysis, they may matter. When ingredient differences are meaningful to consumers, courts may view the goods as less closely related, which weighs against confusion. Combined with the fact that shoppers in a Trader Joe’s store are unlikely to encounter any brand other than Trader Joe’s, those ingredient differences might just carry the day.
Conclusion
In the food and beverage industry, branding choices often matter more than the product itself. Category‑defining innovations (e.g., Amazon, Uber, Netflix) are rare. Most companies are selling variations on products consumers already know well. Washington‑based brands like Cinnabon, Talking Rain, and Teavana all entered crowded markets for baked goods, sparkling water, and tea, respectively. Although each company brought its own product distinctions to the market, distinctive branding served to reinforce and differentiate those qualities in the minds of consumers.
Through narrative, both visual and verbal, these companies created identities that consumers could recognize, trust, and remember. Packaging, names, logos, and overall presentation may seem insignificant in isolation, but together they form a cohesive story about source and quality. And it is that story, more than the contents of the sandwich, that often drives consumer choice. In a marketplace where products often look and taste alike, branding is not just decoration, it is the differentiator. With respect to the dispute between Smucker’s and Trader Joe’s, Smucker’s carries the burden of proving a likelihood of consumer confusion. Given that consumers already differentiate between several crustless PB&J sandwiches, that they encounter the parties’ respective products under differing purchasing conditions, and that the shape of Trader Joe’s crustless sandwiches is alleged to be functional, the odds weigh against Smucker’s.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Allison R. Foreman is a partner at Foreman, Hotchkiss, Bauscher & Zimmerman, PLLC, a law firm in Wenatchee that represents a broad range of clients across North Central Washington. Allison is a graduate of Harvard College, Harvard Law School, and the University of Washington School of Law. She is a lifetime member of Girl Scouts of America and enjoys spending time with her husband, James, and their six children.
Priyanka Menon is an associate in the Intellectual Property Litigation Group at Knobbe Martens, focusing on intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, copyright, and unfair competition matters.
Gregory Phillips is the co-chair of the Trademark and Brand Protection Group at Knobbe Martens. He is a trusted advisor to clients on domestic and international trademark matters, providing comprehensive support in trademark clearance searches, registration, enforcement, and licensing.
NOTES
1. Great Value, Clean Eatz Protein Peanut Butter & Jelly, Jamwich, 7‑Eleven, Red’s, Lunchables, PF3, and Target.
2. ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 3, The J.M. Smucker’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 25CV2181 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2025).
3. Sealed Crustless Sandwich, U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596 (issued Dec. 21, 1999).
4. Smucker’s holds four design patents—D695,994 (issued Dec. 24, 2013); D712,621; D712,622; and D712,623 (last three issued Sept. 9, 2014)—that generally cover a round sandwich with an undulating, crimped edge. In addition, Smucker’s owns two design patents for non‑circular sandwich designs. Design patent D854,780 (issued July 30, 2019) covers a round sandwich with a hexagonal crimped edge, while design patent D978,480 (issued Feb. 21, 2023) covers a heart‑shaped sandwich with a crimped edge.
5. Smucker’s asserted registrations include U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2,623,577; 2,883,529; 5,941,408, 7,871,982; 7,799,903; 7,443,335.
6. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000).
7. Id.
8. 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5).
9. ECF No. 10-1 at 7, Trader Joe’s Company’s Motion to Dismiss and/or to Transfer Venue, The J.M. Smucker’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 25CV2181 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2025).