If you have a kid, or play in the NFL, you are likely familiar with The J.M. Smucker Company UNCRUSTABLES® a pre-made PB&J sandwich. According to The New York Times, “NFL teams go through anywhere from 3,600 to 4,300 Uncrustables a week” or “at least 80,000 Uncrustables a year”. According to Smucker’s “UNCRUSTABLES® sandwiches are the #1 frozen handheld brand in its category in the United States.” Given its popularity it is not surprising that Trader Joe’s decided to launch its own private label store-brand version, though this has put Trader Joe’s in a sticky situation.
In October 2025, Smucker’s filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio against Trader Joe’s for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act alleging that Trader Joe’s private label PB&J sandwich infringes on the trademarks and trade dress of its Smucker’s UNCRUSTABLES® sandwich.
Smucker’s has offered its UNCRUSTABLES® peanut butter and jelly sandwiches since 1990 and claims to have spent $1 billion over the last 20 years developing the brand. To protect its rights in the crustless PB&J sandwich, Smucker’s owns several U.S. trademark registrations, including Registration Nos. 2,623,577 and for the trade dress in the product design 
and 
(used since 1996); U.S. Registration No. 5,941,408 for a two-dimensional pictorial design/logo 
(used since 2000); Registration No. 7,871,982 for its anthropomorphic spokes-sandwich 
(used since at least February 2024); Registration No. 7,799,903 for the word “UNCRUSTABLES” in blue stylized letters; and Registration No. 7,443,335 for the stylized logo 
(collectively, the “Smucker’s Trademarks”). As is often the case with trade dress in the food and beverage space, Smucker’s uses the two-dimensional pictorial design/logo 
and the anthropomorphic spokes-sandwich 
on packaging and advertising to help promote the trade dress of
the product itself. The Coca-Cola Company often features its distinctive classic Coca-Cola bottle in a two-dimensional pictorial design/logo on packaging.
Over the summer of 2025 and as part of its “back to school” offerings, Trader Joe’s introduced a new product line of “frozen” peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with the “crusts” trimmed off and the edges pressed together, called “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches”:
In the lawsuit, Smucker’s alleges that Trader Joe’s new product infringes on the Smucker’s Trademarks by mimicking the UNCRUSTABLES® trade dress of a round, pie-like shape and “distinct peripheral undulated crimping.” Additionally, Smucker’s claims that Trader Joe’s packaging featured a round, crustless sandwich with a crimped edge “with a bite taken out of it on the packaging that mimics” the UNCRUSTABLES® design marks and that Trader Joe’s packaging infringes on the blue color of its logo and uses the same font style.
Smucker’s asserts that these design elements, protected by its federally registered trademarks, have become famous after “over a billion dollars” in investment and two decades of marketing. In its complaint, Smucker’s points to two screenshots of consumer posts on social media and a Yahoo article referencing the Smucker’s Trademarks in connection with the launch of Trader Joe’s product. Notably, one social media post suggests that Trader Joe’s may have obtained a license from Smucker’s to offer its new sandwich. Smucker’s seeks a court order requiring Trader Joe’s to destroy all allegedly infringing products, disclose and pay profits earned from sales, and cover Smucker’s legal fees.
This is not the first time a store like Trader Joe’s has found itself in federal court over making a private label version of a well-known product. In May 2025, Mondelez sued Aldi in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for allegedly infringing the trade dress of Mondelez’s cookies:
Ultimately, the merits of the UNCRUSTABLES® case will hinge on whether Smucker’s can prove that the average consumer seeing just the shape of Trader Joe’s product believes that Smucker’s was behind or affiliated with the Trader Joe’s product. This will likely require strong consumer survey evidence as both of Smucker’s asserted federal registrations for its trade dress were registered under a claim of acquired distinctiveness. Smucker’s may have a lower burden asserting the two-dimensional images and its product packaging as those elements may not require evidence of acquired distinctiveness under Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Samara Bros., Inc. On January 9, 2026, Trader Joe’s filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and/or to Transfer Venue. The product is still listed on the Trader Joe’s website.
Subscribe for News and Updates
