Trader Joe’s Uncrustables Lawsuit: Cancelled Patent and Confusion

In October 2025, The J.M. Smucker Company sued Trader Joe’s in federal court, claiming Trader Joe’s new frozen crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches copy the look, shape, and packaging of Smucker’s Uncrustables. The Smucker’s Trader Joe’s Uncrustables lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleges trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and violations of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.¹² Trader Joe’s has moved to dismiss. As of mid-2026, the court has not ruled, and the product remains on shelves.

The Product Smucker’s Is Targeting

Trader Joe’s launched its “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches” in summer 2025 as part of a back-to-school lineup.²³ A comparable four-pack of Uncrustables sells for around $4.79.⁴ On its product page, Trader Joe’s positioned the sandwiches as a “tasty alternative” to other ready-to-eat crustless sandwiches, claiming competing products “often contain less than desirable ingredients and artificial preservatives.”

What Smucker’s Is Claiming

The complaint, filed October 13, 2025, under case number 5:25-cv-02181, argues that the Trader Joe’s sandwich looks too much like an Uncrustable in the product itself, on the box, and in how it’s marketed.⁵ Smucker’s points to three layers of similarity:

Both sandwiches are round and crustless with crimped edges, matching what Smucker’s trademark filings describe as a “round, pie-like shape” with “distinct peripheral undulated crimping.”²
Both boxes show an image of a sandwich with a bite taken out of it on the front.¹
The Trader Joe’s packaging uses a similar blue-letter color scheme.¹

Smucker’s backs those allegations with several federal registrations. Registration No. 2,623,577 covers the product design itself. No. 5,941,408, in use since 2000, covers a two-dimensional pictorial design. No. 7,443,335 covers a stylized logo with blue letters. No. 7,871,982 covers an anthropomorphic “spokes-sandwich” character used since at least February 2024. No. 7,799,903 covers the UNCRUSTABLES word mark. The product-design registrations were secured under a claim of “acquired distinctiveness,” meaning Smucker’s argued to the trademark office that the shape had become so associated with the brand that consumers recognize it as an Uncrustable on sight.²

What Smucker’s Is Asking the Court to Do

Smucker’s wants an order requiring Trader Joe’s to stop selling the sandwiches, hand over all remaining products and marketing materials for destruction, and disclose and pay over any profits earned from the product’s sales.²⁶ The company is also seeking unspecified monetary damages and reimbursement of its legal fees.⁷

Where the Case Stands

On January 9, 2026, Trader Joe’s filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Smucker’s complaint fails to state a valid legal claim and, alternatively, that the case should be transferred to a different venue. Smucker’s opposed the motion on February 9, and Trader Joe’s filed a reply on February 23. As of June 2026, the motion remains pending before Judge John R. Adams, with no ruling issued and no trial date set.⁸ The Trader Joe’s product remains listed for sale on the company’s website.³

Why the Case Is Harder Than It Looks for Smucker’s

Legal analysts who have looked at the dispute see two real obstacles for Smucker’s: whether the shape of the sandwich can be owned at all, and whether shoppers could actually confuse the two products.

The Cancelled Patent Problem

Smucker’s once held U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596 for the “sealed crustless sandwich,” issued in 1999. That patent was cancelled after a third party challenged it in a USPTO reexamination proceeding, citing prior art including a 1996 Pampered Chef recipe book.⁹ Without the patent, Smucker’s can no longer claim exclusive rights to the functional idea of a sealed crustless sandwich. The case now rests on trademarks and trade dress: the argument that the specific look of the product and its packaging identifies Uncrustables as a brand.

That distinction matters. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., product design (the physical shape of the sandwich) can never be considered inherently distinctive. It can only be protected if Smucker’s proves “secondary meaning,” meaning consumers have come to associate that particular shape with Uncrustables specifically.¹⁰ Waseem Moorad, a law professor at Villanova University, said Smucker’s will need to demonstrate actual customer confusion in the marketplace, potentially through consumer feedback or testimony.⁷ The old patent could also work against Smucker’s here: courts have held that a prior utility patent is “strong evidence” that the claimed features are functional rather than decorative, which would make them ineligible for trade dress protection.

The Store-Brand Confusion Problem

Because the case was filed in Ohio’s Northern District (within the Sixth Circuit), any likelihood-of-confusion analysis will be governed by the multi-factor “Frisch’s test.” Trader Joe’s has a straightforward defense. Its stores only sell Trader Joe’s branded products. Uncrustables are not stocked there. A shopper walking through a Trader Joe’s freezer aisle never sees the two boxes side by side.

Tim J. Billick, an intellectual property attorney, called Smucker’s packaging trade dress arguments weak for that reason, saying the likelihood of confusion between a national name brand and a clearly labeled store brand sold only at one retailer is minimal.¹¹ Moorad similarly said Trader Joe’s is expected to emphasize its identity as a seller of its own private-label goods, arguing that no reasonable consumer would assume a commercial relationship between the two brands.⁷

Smucker’s may have somewhat better footing on its two-dimensional packaging claims (the bitten-sandwich image, the blue lettering, the overall box design), since packaging trade dress does not require proof of secondary meaning the way product shape does.¹⁰ Trader Joe’s can still counter that a bite-mark image is a standard marketing device and that box color alone does not tell shoppers who made the product.

Trader Joe’s Has Been Here Before

This is not the first time a national brand has accused Trader Joe’s of copying. In 2015, Pepperidge Farm sued Trader Joe’s in federal court in Connecticut, claiming that Trader Joe’s “Crispy Cookies” infringed on the trademark and trade dress of Milano cookies by imitating the cookie shape and packaging design.¹² That case settled in March 2016, with terms not publicly disclosed.¹³ Trader Joe’s business model is built on selling private-label products as alternatives to national brands, which puts the company close to the line between competition and copying on a regular basis. The Smucker’s case will test where that line falls for a product whose shape is arguably as recognizable as its name.

1
ABC News. Uncrustables Maker JM Smucker Sues Trader Joe’s Over PBJ Sandwiches
2
IAM. Trader Joe’s Files Motion to Dismiss in Ongoing Trade Dress Infringement Dispute
3
Trader Joe’s. Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches
4
The Takeout. Trader Joe’s Crustless PB&J Sandwiches Review
5
UniCourt. J.M. Smucker Company v. Trader Joe’s Company
6
NBC DFW. Trader Joe’s Uncrustables Lawsuit
7
Villanova University. Smucker’s v. Trader Joe’s Expert Spotlight
8
CourtListener. J.M. Smucker Company v. Trader Joe’s Company Docket
9
Lerner David. Sealing the Deal: How Smucker Protects Its Uncrustables Through Patents and Trademarks
10
IPWatchdog. Trade Dress Considerations for Food and Beverage Products
11
Practus. Is Trader Joe’s Ready for This Jelly? Smucker’s Sues TJ’s for Trademark Infringement in Ohio
12
The Kitchn. Trader Joe’s in Hot Water Over Possible Trademark Infringement
13
PR Daily. Trader Joe’s and Pepperidge Farm Settle Cookie Trademark Battle