{"id":9866,"date":"2025-10-21T01:06:32","date_gmt":"2025-10-21T05:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=9866"},"modified":"2025-10-21T01:06:32","modified_gmt":"2025-10-21T05:06:32","slug":"smucker-sues-trader-joes-over-lookalike-sandwich-packaging","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=9866","title":{"rendered":"Smucker sues Trader Joe\u2019s over lookalike sandwich packaging"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n \n <\/picture>
Smucker seeks restitution, an injunction and the destruction of allegedly infringing products and packaging. \/ Credit: Piotr Swat via Shutterstock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

The J.M. Smucker Co. has filed a lawsuit in US federal court alleging packaging trademark infringement by Trader Joe\u2019s in the retailer\u2019s new frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.<\/p>\n

Smucker claims the product\u2019s trade dress\u2014including a round, crustless shape with pie-style crimped edges and a box design featuring blue lettering and a bitten sandwich image\u2014copies key elements associated with its Uncrustables brand.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n

Discover B2B Marketing That Performs <\/h4>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCombine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n


\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFind out more <\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n

The company is seeking restitution, an order to surrender products and packaging for destruction, and an injunction to prevent further use.<\/p>\n

The complaint places packaging design, intellectual property and private label lookalikes squarely in focus for brands and retailers.<\/p>\n

Design and packaging at the heart of the trade dress claim<\/strong><\/p>\n

Smucker argues that Trader Joe\u2019s crustless PB&J sandwiches are substantially similar to Uncrustables in both product appearance and carton presentation, potentially causing consumer confusion.<\/p>\n

According to the filing, the crimped perimeter\u2014long portrayed in Uncrustables\u2019 visuals\u2014functions as a distinctive brand cue. Smucker also objects to the alleged replication of blue typography accents and a front-of-pack image with a bite taken out of the sandwich, elements it says consumers associate with Uncrustables.<\/p>\n

Trade dress protection in the United States covers the total image of a product or its packaging where that image indicates source.<\/p>\n

In its complaint, Smucker cites registered trademarks tied to the Uncrustables line and argues that Trader Joe\u2019s overall combination of design choices violates those rights.<\/p>\n

The company stresses it does not object to rivals selling frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwiches in principle, but contends that competitors should not use nearly identical visual signals.<\/p>\n

Arguments likely to shape a packaging trademark infringement case<\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal specialists note that outcomes in packaging trademark infringement often turn on two tests: whether the claimed features are functional and whether ordinary shoppers are likely to be confused.<\/p>\n

Trader Joe\u2019s could argue the crimped seal is merely functional for enclosing fillings, not a protectable brand identifier. The retailer may also point to shape differences\u2014Smucker alleges Trader Joe\u2019s sandwiches appear slightly more square\u2014and other design nuances to contest similarity.<\/p>\n

Courts frequently examine marketplace context, brand prominence, and survey or social media evidence indicating confusion.<\/p>\n

Smucker\u2019s filing cites online posts where consumers speculated that Smucker might be producing Trader Joe\u2019s sandwiches under a private label arrangement, which the brand presents as an example of real-world confusion.<\/p>\n

If the case advances, expert testimony on functionality, distinctiveness and consumer perception will be central.<\/p>\n

Why this dispute matters for private label, lookalike packaging and brand protection<\/strong><\/p>\n

For packaging teams, the dispute underscores the balancing act between private label packaging that signals category and value while avoiding unlawful imitation of a national brand\u2019s trade dress.<\/p>\n

Retailers often push for shelf impact and rapid recognition, but brand owners are increasingly litigious where they believe packaging or product design crosses the line.<\/p>\n

Recent high-profile clashes in US grocery aisles\u2014spanning biscuits, crackers and other snacks\u2014have amplified scrutiny of lookalike packaging and trade dress infringement across categories.<\/p>\n

If Smucker prevails, the ruling could encourage brand owners to pursue tighter control over distinctive shapes, colour combinations and imagery on both primary packs and cartons.<\/p>\n

A settlement, which is common in trademark cases, could still result in packaging changes or a pull-back while avoiding a lengthy trial.<\/p>\n

Either outcome will be closely watched by packaging developers, in-house counsel and private-label suppliers who must vet designs for IP risk alongside sustainability, cost and manufacturability.<\/p>\n

Smucker says it has invested more than two decades and significant funding to build the Uncrustables franchise, including product engineering such as flexible bread substrates and diversified fillings. That investment forms part of the company\u2019s argument that the brand\u2019s overall get-up has acquired distinctiveness.<\/p>\n

Trader Joe\u2019s, which had not publicly responded at the time of writing, may rebut by highlighting functional constraints for sealed, thaw-and-eat sandwiches and by emphasising its own brand cues.<\/p>\n

For now, the case serves as a practical reminder: teams developing packaging design\u2014from dielines and imagery to colourways and product silhouettes\u2014should run early trade dress and trademark screens, especially when building private-label ranges near category leaders.<\/p>\n

With regulators and courts paying closer attention to consumer deception, the safest route is to document the functional rationale for features, test for shopper confusion and differentiate decisively on the front of pack.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n