Smucker v. Trader Joe’s: The PB&J Showdown Nobody Saw Coming

This lawsuit brings a smile to my face. I grew up eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches—sometimes with the crusts cut off, sometimes not—and I still have a soft spot for that simple, perfect combo. So, when I saw that The J.M. Smucker Company, the maker of Uncrustables, sued Trader Joe’s over its “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches,” I couldn’t help but laugh a little at how far we’ve come.

Smucker’s claims that Trader Joe’s product is an obvious copycat—same round shape, crimped edge, and even a bite shown on the box. According to the complaint filed in federal court in Ohio, Smucker argues that this design is protected by a series of trademark registrations, including one for the distinctive round, sealed edge of the sandwich .

Here’s where nostalgia meets law. I remember using Smucker’s original sealed crustless sandwich patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596) in past talks about intellectual property. I’d joke that “you can patent just about anything—even a better peanut butter and jelly sandwich.” And Smucker did just that in the late 1990s, patenting the process that seals the sandwich and keeps the filling inside .

But times—and trademark law—have changed. Once that patent expired, the question became whether Smucker could use trademark law to keep its round, sealed sandwich design exclusive. That’s where things get tricky.

The biggest problem Smucker faces is functionality. Trademark law doesn’t protect product features that are functional—meaning they’re essential to the product’s use or purpose, or affect its cost or quality. And that sealed, crimped edge? It’s not just decorative. It’s how the sandwich is made—the patent itself explains that the edge seals the filling and keeps it from leaking . If the edge is functional, it can’t be trademarked.

So while Smucker’s design is recognizable, that doesn’t necessarily make it protectable. Courts have long drawn a line between aesthetic branding and useful design, and Smucker’s case will hinge on convincing the court that the round, sealed shape isn’t functional—but distinctive. That’s going to be a tough sell.

My prediction? Smucker and Trader Joe’s will eventually find a business solution rather than fight this to the end. My guess is they’ll settle, maybe with Smucker getting a better distribution or co-branding deal in Trader Joe’s stores. That’s usually how these bread-and-(peanut) butter battles end.

Still, I have to admire Smucker’s commitment to defending its PB&J empire. It’s a sweet reminder—pun intended—that even something as simple as a sandwich can become a fascinating legal debate about patents, trademarks, and the blurry line between the two.