Imagine biting into a frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwich, only to find yourself in the middle of a heated legal battle. That’s exactly what’s happening between The J.M. Smucker Co. and Trader Joe’s, as Smucker accuses the beloved grocery chain of copying its iconic Uncrustables. But here’s where it gets controversial: is Trader Joe’s truly guilty of intellectual theft, or is this just a case of two companies fighting over a simple sandwich design? Let’s dive in.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in federal court in Ohio, Smucker claims Trader Joe’s new frozen PB&J sandwiches are eerily similar to Uncrustables—right down to the round, crustless shape and the pie-like crimp markings on the edges. Smucker argues this design violates its trademarks, but Trader Joe’s might counter that these features are purely functional. And this is the part most people miss: the packaging is also under fire. Smucker alleges Trader Joe’s boxes use the same blue lettering and even feature a sandwich with a bite mark, mirroring Uncrustables’ design. Is this a clear-cut case of copying, or just a coincidence in a crowded market?
Smucker isn’t just asking for restitution—it wants Trader Joe’s to hand over all the allegedly infringing products for destruction. That’s right, every last sandwich. But why is Smucker so protective of its brand? The company has spent over $1 billion in the last 20 years perfecting Uncrustables, from developing stretchy bread to creating unique flavors like chocolate and hazelnut. It’s not just a sandwich; it’s a legacy.
Here’s the kicker: Smucker claims Trader Joe’s sandwiches are already confusing consumers. A social media post even suggested Trader Joe’s was partnering with Smucker to produce the sandwiches under its label. Is this a harmless mistake, or a deliberate attempt to ride on Uncrustables’ success? Michael Kelber, an intellectual property expert, notes that the core issue is whether consumers are being deceived. If they are, Smucker has a strong case—but Trader Joe’s could argue its sandwiches are distinct, pointing to their slightly squarer shape and other differences.
This isn’t Smucker’s first rodeo. In 2022, it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Gallant Tiger, a Minnesota company making upscale crustless sandwiches with crimped edges. Smucker hasn’t pursued further action against Gallant Tiger, but it’s clear the company is drawing a line in the sand with Trader Joe’s. Is Smucker overreacting, or is this a necessary move to protect its brand?
Kelber suggests Smucker likely felt it had no choice but to sue. “If they ignore Trader Joe’s, they’re setting a precedent,” he explains. But trademark cases often end in settlements, as neither party wants to endure a costly trial. Still, this case raises bigger questions: How much can a company claim ownership over a product’s design? And where do we draw the line between inspiration and imitation?
What do you think? Is Smucker justified in its lawsuit, or is Trader Joe’s getting a raw deal? Let us know in the comments—this debate is far from over.
