The frozen food aisle is the unlikely battleground for a new legal clash between two food industry heavyweights: The J.M. Smucker Company, famed for its Uncrustables sandwiches, and the ever-popular grocery chain Trader Joe’s. On October 13, 2025, Smucker filed a federal lawsuit in Ohio, accusing Trader Joe’s of trademark infringement and unfair competition over its recently launched Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches. The case, which is already drawing national attention, centers on the design, packaging, and branding of these frozen PB&J treats—and whether Trader Joe’s has crossed the line from competition into imitation.
Smucker’s Uncrustables—those round, crustless, prepackaged peanut butter and jelly sandwiches—have been a staple in American lunchboxes since 2000. According to ABC News, Smucker claims Trader Joe’s new version mimics the “distinctive” features of Uncrustables, not just in the round, pie-like shape with crimped edges, but also in the packaging. The lawsuit alleges that Trader Joe’s uses a similar shade of blue lettering and features an image of a sandwich with a bite taken out—distinctive elements that Smucker says are protected by multiple trademarks.
“As a responsible trademark owner, we actively monitor the marketplace and enforce our federally registered trademarks to protect the distinctive Uncrustables sandwich design and round shape,” a Smucker representative told ABC News. The company insists its focus is “solely on protecting the unique trademarked design that represents the high quality associated with the Uncrustables brand and preventing consumer confusion caused by imitation.”
Trader Joe’s, for its part, has not yet responded publicly to the lawsuit or to requests for comment from several news outlets, including Fox Business and Los Angeles Times. The company is known for its quirky, affordable private-label products and has built a cult following with shoppers who prize its creative snacks and frozen meals. But now, its foray into the PB&J freezer territory has landed it in hot legal water.
The details of the case are as specific as they are contentious. Smucker’s lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Ohio, claims that Trader Joe’s crustless, round sandwich pockets are “obvious copycats” of Uncrustables. The complaint points out that both products are frozen, thaw-and-eat, round sandwiches with crimped edges, and that Trader Joe’s packaging—a light blue box showing four sandwiches stacked, the top with a bite taken out—closely resembles Uncrustables’ own branding. The sandwiches are sold in four-count packs, with Trader Joe’s version retailing for $3.79 and Smucker’s for $4.79 at major retailers like Target.
Smucker’s legal argument is rooted in its extensive intellectual property portfolio. The company trademarked the Uncrustables design in 1996, then secured a 2D image of a bitten sandwich in 2000, and even a character with eyes and limbs in 2024. According to the lawsuit, Trader Joe’s never licensed any of these trademarks. “In an effort to trade off of Smucker’s valuable goodwill and Smucker’s substantial investment in the valuable intellectual property associated with Uncrustables sandwiches, Defendant Trader Joe’s Company has launched an obvious copycat,” the complaint alleges, as reported by the Beacon Journal.
The lawsuit isn’t just about design similarities. Smucker claims that Trader Joe’s actions have led to real consumer confusion, citing social media posts where shoppers mistakenly believe the Trader Joe’s product is made by Smucker’s under a private label agreement. One such post reads, “Trader Joe’s contracts with the companies to make the Trader Joe’s labeled items even when they’re the same thing!” Smucker emphatically denies any such partnership, arguing that this confusion is precisely what trademark law is meant to prevent.
Legal experts say the case is a textbook example of trademark law in action. Geoffrey Lottenberg, who leads intellectual property at Berger Singerman, told ABC News, “The key to this case is Smucker’s proving that it has strong brand rights, and that consumers are likely to be confused into believing the Trader Joe’s sandwiches are affiliated with Smucker’s.” He added that the presence of social media posts suggesting a connection between the two brands could play a pivotal role in court.
Michael Kelber, chair of the intellectual property group at Neal Gerber Eisenberg, told the Associated Press that Smucker’s registered trademarks will bolster its case. However, he noted that Trader Joe’s might argue the crimping is simply functional and not subject to trademark protection, or that its sandwiches are slightly more square than Uncrustables, which could complicate the question of “substantial similarity.”
Smucker isn’t new to defending its PB&J turf. In 2022, the company sent a cease-and-desist letter to Gallant Tiger, a Minnesota startup making upscale, round, crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with crimped edges. Smucker said it continues to monitor Gallant Tiger’s activities but hasn’t taken further action. The company has spent around $1 billion over several years on marketing and product development for Uncrustables, underscoring the brand’s importance to its overall portfolio, which also includes Folgers, Dunkin’, Café Bustelo, Jif, and Hostess.
As for Trader Joe’s, the grocery chain operates more than 500 stores nationwide, with more than 150 in California alone. Owned by German supermarket giant Aldi, Trader Joe’s has long thrived on its reputation for unique, affordable products. The company’s PB&J sandwich offering is just the latest in a long line of creative snacks and meals that have helped it stand out in a crowded marketplace. But this time, its creativity may have landed it in a legal jam.
Smucker’s lawsuit seeks more than just monetary compensation. The company is asking the court to order Trader Joe’s to cease production of its Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches, and to turn over all products and packaging for destruction. The amount of restitution will be determined at trial. Represented by attorney Meredith Wilkes, Smucker’s is also seeking relief under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition statutes.
The case is still in its early stages, with defenses yet to be lodged by Trader Joe’s. Legal observers expect the proceedings to test the boundaries of product design recognition and the limits of how closely a competitor can mimic a popular product before running afoul of trademark law. As Lottenberg put it, “This case is set up to test the bounds of product design recognition and how close a competitor can come before getting into hot water.”
For now, the future of Trader Joe’s crustless PB&J sandwiches hangs in the balance. The outcome of this high-profile food fight could have ramifications far beyond the frozen aisle, offering a fresh look at how companies protect their most iconic products—and how far rivals can go in pursuit of a slice of the market.
