In a move that has sent ripples through the world of packaged snacks, J.M. Smucker, the powerhouse behind the beloved Uncrustables frozen sandwiches, has launched a high-stakes lawsuit against Trader Joe’s, alleging that the grocery chain’s new crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are blatant copycats. The legal action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on October 13, 2025, accuses Trader Joe’s of infringing on Smucker’s trademarks, engaging in unfair competition, and using deceptive trade practices to siphon off the hard-earned reputation of Uncrustables.
At the heart of the dispute are the sandwiches’ distinctive features: the round, crustless shape with pie-like crimped edges and the blue-tinged packaging design that Smucker claims are hallmarks of Uncrustables. According to the lawsuit, Trader Joe’s crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches not only mimic the shape and crimping but also use similar packaging colors and even display a sandwich with a bite taken out of it—an image that closely mirrors Uncrustables’ own box art. Smucker asserts that these similarities are no coincidence, calling Trader Joe’s product an “obvious attempt to trade off of the fame and recognition of the Uncrustables Design Marks.”
"Smucker does not take issue with others in the marketplace selling prepackaged, frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwiches. But it cannot allow others to use Smucker’s valuable intellectual property to make such sales," the company stated in its lawsuit, as reported by CBS News. The company’s position is clear: they welcome competition, but not at the expense of their brand identity. Smucker’s spokesperson further clarified in an email that the company "actively monitor[s] the marketplace and enforce[s] our federally registered trademarks to protect the distinctive Uncrustables sandwich design and round shape. Our 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."
The stakes are high for Smucker, which has invested over $1 billion developing the Uncrustables brand over the past two decades. Uncrustables, a staple in lunchboxes and cafeterias across the country, is now a nearly $1 billion brand, producing more than 1.5 billion sandwiches annually in three U.S. facilities. The brand has enjoyed a remarkable run, with sales rising nearly 16% to $920 million in its 2025 fiscal year—its eleventh consecutive year of double-digit growth, according to Dive Brief.
But Smucker’s isn’t just seeking damages or lost profits. The company’s lawsuit requests that Trader Joe’s be required to deliver all allegedly infringing sandwiches and packaging to Smucker for destruction. They also want Trader Joe’s to account for all profits earned from the sales of its crustless sandwiches. Smucker warns that without court intervention, Trader Joe’s will "gain an unfair competitive advantage" and that its actions "will continue to cause irreparable injury" to the food manufacturer.
Consumer confusion is a central claim in Smucker’s case. The lawsuit cites social media posts, including one TikTok review where a user speculated, "They’re probably made in the same factory as actual Uncrustables." Smucker contends that such confusion is already occurring, with some shoppers mistakenly believing Trader Joe’s sandwiches are either made by or affiliated with Smucker. The company argues that Trader Joe’s design choices are not merely functional but are intended to deceive consumers into believing there is a connection between the two brands.
Legal experts say Smucker’s case may have teeth. Michael Kelber, chair of the intellectual property group at Neal Gerber Eisenberg, told ABC News that Smucker’s registered trademarks for the round, crimped-edge design and blue packaging will bolster its argument. However, Trader Joe’s could counter that the crimping is simply functional and not subject to trademark protection. Kelber also noted that Trader Joe’s sandwiches appear slightly more square than Uncrustables, which could become a point of contention in the case.
Uncrustables’ journey to supermarket stardom began in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, in 1996, when two friends invented the sealed, crustless sandwich. Smucker acquired the company in 1998 and secured patents for the “sealed, crustless sandwich” a year later. The company spent years perfecting the product, from developing its signature stretchy bread to launching new flavors like chocolate and hazelnut. The brand’s success has made it a target for competitors, and this isn’t the first time Smucker has taken legal action to defend its turf. In 2022, the company sent a cease and desist letter to Gallant Tiger, a Minnesota-based company making upscale crustless sandwiches with crimped edges. While Smucker hasn’t taken further action against Gallant Tiger, it continues to monitor the market for potential infringements.
The Smucker-Trader Joe’s lawsuit is part of a broader trend in the food industry, as major brands seek to protect their market share against the rising tide of private-label products. Earlier this year, Mondelez International filed suit against Aldi, alleging that the grocer’s store-brand cookies and crackers too closely resembled Chips Ahoy!, Wheat Thins, and Oreos. Private label sales have been on a tear, hitting a record $271 billion in 2024, up 3.9% from the previous year, while national brands grew by just 1%, according to Circana. As inflation has squeezed household budgets, more consumers are turning to store brands for better value, intensifying competition and legal skirmishes in the grocery aisles.
For now, Trader Joe’s has not responded publicly to the lawsuit or requests for comment. The outcome of this case could have implications not just for the two companies involved, but for the future of private-label innovation and the boundaries of trademark protection in the food industry. As Kelber put it, "For the brand owner, what is the point of having this brand if I’m not going to enforce it? If they ignore Trader Joe’s, they are feeding that, and then the next person who does it they won’t have an argument."
As the legal battle unfolds, consumers are left to ponder whether their favorite crustless snack will remain unchanged—or if the sandwich wars will reshape the market for good.
