ANTI-CRUST LAW: Smucker's Alleges IP Theft of 'Uncrustables' by Trader Joe’s
Who is Cutting Corners?
A recent federal lawsuit has put a popular school lunch staple at the center of a sticky intellectual property dispute. The J. M. Smucker Company, creator of the iconic “Uncrustables” sealed crustless sandwiches, has filed a complaint against grocery chain Trader Joe’s, alleging that its new “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches” are an unlawful imitation. The complaint in this case highlights the significant value embedded in a product’s unique design and the legal tools available to protect it from competitors who may try to cut corners.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, accuses Trader Joe’s of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and trademark dilution, among other state and federal claims.
It serves as a live-action case study for intellectual property owners on the importance of protecting a product’s overall look and feel as a source identifier. (The J. M. Smucker Company v. Trader Joe’s Company, Case No. 5:25-cv-2181, N.D. Ohio, filed Oct. 13, 2025).
Background of the Dispute
According to the complaint, Smucker’s Uncrustables are the “#1 frozen handheld brand in its category in the United States,” a status achieved through “decades of marketing and product development costing over a billion dollars” (p. 1). This investment, Smucker’s argues, has resulted in a product whose unique design features are instantly recognizable to consumers.
The dispute arose when Trader Joe’s, known for its extensive portfolio of private-label products, launched its own version of a frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwich. Smucker’s alleges that Trader Joe’s has launched an “obvious copycat” in an “effort to trade off of Smucker’s valuable goodwill” (p. 1).
The core of the legal conflict is not that Trader Joe’s is selling a similar type of sandwich, but that it has allegedly copied the specific design elements that Smucker’s has spent years and vast resources establishing as its own intellectual property.
A Look at Smucker’s IP Allegations
The complaint lays out several distinct but related intellectual property claims, each targeting a different aspect of Trader Joe’s product and packaging.
Trademark Infringement
The central allegation is trademark infringement. While many associate trademarks with brand names and logos, they can also protect product configurations. Smucker’s has secured several federal trademark registrations for the appearance of its Uncrustables sandwiches, which it collectively refers to as the “Uncrustables Design Marks” (p. 8). These registrations cover key features, including:
A “pie-like shape with distinct peripheral undulated crimping” (p. 5).
A “pictorial representation of a round crustless sandwich” (p. 6).
A depiction of the sandwich “with a bite taken out of it showing filling on the inside” (p. 7).
Smucker’s argues that the Trader Joe’s product is “round with a crimped edge” and that its packaging features an image of the sandwich with a bite taken out, directly mimicking Smucker’s protected marks. This, the company contends, is likely to cause confusion among consumers about the source of the product. The complaint states:
“Defendant’s use of the Uncrustables Design Marks without the authorization of Smucker has and is likely to continue to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers as to the source or origin of Defendant’s goods and the sponsorship or endorsement of those goods by Smucker.” (p. 16)
To support this claim, the complaint includes screenshots of social media posts where consumers appear to believe the Trader Joe’s version is made by Smucker’s for the retailer, with one commenter noting, “These aren’t knock offs- Trader Joe’s contracts with the companies to make the Trader Joe’s labeled items even when they’re the same thing!” (p. 14). This evidence of actual confusion could be a powerful factor in the case.
Trade Dress Infringement and Dilution
Closely related to the trademark claim is the allegation of trade dress infringement. Trade dress refers to the total image and overall appearance of a product or its packaging.
Here, Smucker’s argues that the combination of the sandwich shape, the crimped edge, the “bite” image, and even the packaging color creates an infringing total package. The complaint points out that “out of all the colors that could be chosen, Defendant chose packaging that prominently features the same color blue that Smucker uses” (p. 13).
Smucker’s also alleges trademark dilution, a claim reserved for famous marks. The company argues that its Uncrustables Design Marks are famous and that Trader Joe’s use of a similar design will lessen their distinctiveness. This “blurring” of the mark’s uniqueness harms Smucker’s brand identity, which it has spent a fortune to build.
State and Common Law Claims
The complaint is rounded out with claims of unfair competition and violation of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. These state-level claims mirror the federal allegations, contending that Trader Joe’s is competing unfairly by creating a product that is deceptively similar to Smucker’s well-known offering.
A History of Brand Enforcement
Trademark owners are compelled to police their brands, as a failure to do so can lead to the weakening or even loss of their exclusive rights.
The lawsuit against Trader Joe’s is not the first time Smucker has taken legal action to protect the Uncrustables brand. The company has pursued several intellectual property disputes over the years to guard its trademarked sandwich design. Previous legal actions by Smucker include:
A patent dispute with Albie’s Foods: In 2001, Smucker sent a cease-and-desist order to Albie’s Foods, a small Midwestern company also selling crustless sandwiches. The dispute over the “sealed crustless sandwich” patent was settled and later dismissed, and the patent appears to have been invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2008 during a reissue examination based on “prior art.”
A cease-and-desist letter to Gallant Tiger: In 2022, the company sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Minnesota company that was making and selling upscale crustless round sandwiches with crimped edges.
A lawsuit against a manufacturer selling sandwich cutters: In 2023, Smucker won a lawsuit by default against a Chinese manufacturer selling sandwich cutters on Amazon that were designed to mimic the Uncrustables shape.
A lawsuit against Chubby Snacks: Smucker settled a lawsuit with the frozen sandwich startup in July 2025. Smucker had accused Chubby Snacks of misusing its trademarks and making disparaging comments about Uncrustables while marketing its own products.
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
This case offers several important lessons for brand owners and their legal counsel.
Product Configuration Can Be a Valuable Asset: Smucker’s ability to bring this suit is founded on its proactive decision to register the physical appearance of its product as a trademark. This case underscores that intellectual property protection extends beyond names and logos to the very shape and design of a product. Companies with uniquely designed products should consider pursuing similar registrations to freeze out potential imitators.
The High Value of Brand Goodwill: The complaint’s emphasis on Smucker’s billion-dollar investment is not just for dramatic effect. It establishes the immense goodwill and consumer recognition tied to the Uncrustables design. This goodwill is a protectable interest, and courts are more likely to find infringement when a well-established and heavily promoted design is copied.
Risks in Private Labeling: While private labeling is a legitimate business strategy, this case serves as a caution for retailers. The convenience of sourcing products from manufacturers does not provide a license to copy the trade dress of national brands. A thorough IP clearance is necessary to avoid a sticky legal situation.
Evidence of Confusion is Powerful: Smucker’s inclusion of social media comments and an online article demonstrates a modern approach to proving consumer confusion. Practitioners should advise clients to monitor online channels for such evidence, as it can be highly persuasive in demonstrating that a competitor’s product is causing deception in the marketplace.
Looking Ahead
The dispute between Smucker’s and Trader Joe’s is more than just a fight over a peanut butter and jam sandwich. It is a fundamental intellectual property conflict over the right to a unique and famous product design.
On first impression, the case looks to reaffirm the principle that a product’s appearance can be one of its most valuable assets.
For entrepreneurs, established brands, and others looking to make enough dough, this case is a reminder that investing in strong IP protection for a product’s design can provide the smooth advantage needed to preserve market share and brand identity.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.