Can You Trademark a PB&J Sandwich?

Inside Smucker's Legal Battle with Trader Joe's

On October 13, 2025, J.M. Smucker Company filed a lawsuit against Trader Joe's in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case No. 5:25-cv-02181), accusing the grocery chain of trademark infringement over crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. But this case is about more than just sandwiches—it's about how companies extend intellectual property protection long after patents expire.

The Dispute
Smucker's claims that Trader Joe's new "Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches" are copycats of its Uncrustables product—frozen, thaw-and-eat PB&J sandwiches that Smucker's has sold since the mid-1990s. The company alleges Trader Joe's is infringing on its trademarks and attempting to "trade off of Smucker's valuable goodwill."

What's Being Protected? Trade Dress Claims

It's important to understand what legal protection Smucker's is claiming here. This is a trade dress case under trademark law, not a copyright case.

Smucker's is claiming that its product's distinctive appearance has acquired trade dress protection through years of market presence and consumer recognition. Specifically, they claim trade dress rights in:

• "A round pie-like shape with distinct peripheral undulated crimping"

• The packaging image of "a round crustless sandwich with a bite taken out showing filling on the inside"

The registered word mark "UNCRUSTABLES" (Serial No. 75873339, Registration No. 2,473,056) is separately protected, but the design elements at issue are being asserted as trade dress.

Understanding Trade Dress
Trade dress is not something you register like a traditional trademark—it's a protection status that certain products can acquire when they become so well-known that their appearance itself identifies the source to consumers.

Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, companies can claim trade dress protection without formal registration, provided they can prove:

1. The design is non-functional (not essential to how the product works)

2. The design has acquired distinctiveness or "secondary meaning" (consumers associate that specific appearance with their brand)

Trade dress essentially says: "Our product's look has become so famous that copying it will confuse consumers about who made the product." It's a form of intellectual property protection that arises from market success and brand recognition, not from filing paperwork with the USPTO.

From Patent to Trade Dress: Extending IP Protection
Here's where this case gets particularly interesting: Smucker's original protection for Uncrustables came from a utility patent, which has since expired.

In 1999, Smucker's was granted U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596 for a "sealed crustless sandwich" with crimped edges. Utility patents last 20 years from the filing date, meaning this patent expired around 2019.

This lawsuit represents an attempt to extend intellectual property protection beyond the patent's life through trade dress claims. While patents are designed to eventually enter the public domain, trade dress protection can theoretically last forever as long as the design continues to identify the product's source in consumers' minds.

This strategy—transitioning from expired patent protection to trade dress protection—is legally contentious. The central tension: Once a patent expires, can a company claim that features that were once protected as functional inventions are now protectable as non-functional brand identifiers?

The Stakes
Smucker's claims it has invested over $1 billion in developing and marketing Uncrustables, arguing this investment has made the product's distinctive appearance inseparable from the brand itself. The product has become a cultural phenomenon—popular with schoolchildren and even NFL players, who collectively consume an estimated 80,000 Uncrustables per season.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief (stopping sales and destroying infringing materials), plus monetary damages and restitution.

Smucker's emphasizes in its filing: "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 Legal Battleground
Consumer Confusion: Beyond the Package

Legal experts suggest Trader Joe's will argue that consumers aren't confused because Trader Joe's branding is strong and clearly displayed on packaging. "When you go into Trader Joe's and you buy a product that has Trader Joe's on the package, the argument that they're going to make is that consumers are not confused," explained Lawrence Hadley, chair of intellectual property law at Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro.

However, Smucker's strongest argument may focus on confusion that occurs after purchase—when the product is out of its package.

When a parent packs an Uncrustable-like sandwich in a child's lunchbox, or when someone sees another person eating a round, crimped crustless sandwich, would they assume it's a Smucker's Uncrustable? The legal test for trade dress infringement isn't limited to point-of-sale confusion while looking at branded packaging. Courts also consider post-sale confusion—whether observers seeing the product itself, divorced from its packaging context, would confuse its source.

This is where Trader Joe's "strong branding" defense becomes less relevant. Yes, Trader Joe's packaging clearly identifies the product as a Trader Joe's product. But once that sandwich is removed from the box and placed in a lunch bag, on a plate, or in someone's hand, does the product's appearance itself cause confusion about its origin? If consumers see someone eating a round, crimped, crustless sandwich and think "that's an Uncrustable," that could constitute actionable confusion under trade dress law—regardless of what the package said.

Functionality: Are There Alternative Designs?
Perhaps the most critical issue in this case is whether the crimped edge and round shape are functional or merely ornamental.

The legal test for functionality asks: Are there alternative designs that could achieve the same functional purpose?

Trader Joe's will likely argue that crimping is functional—it seals the sandwich and prevents leakage. But Smucker's counter-argument is straightforward: There are numerous other ways to create a sealed, leak-proof bread pocket filled with peanut butter and jelly. The sandwich could be:

• Square or rectangular instead of round

• Sealed with straight edges instead of crimped ones

• Made with different sealing patterns or techniques

• Constructed with overlapping dough rather than crimped edges

If multiple alternative designs can achieve the same functional result (a sealed, crustless sandwich), then Smucker's specific design choices—the round shape and the distinctive "undulated crimping"—may be considered ornamental rather than functional. This is the essence of the functionality test: A feature is only "functional" if it's essential to the use or purpose of the product, or if alternative designs would be inferior or more costly.

The fact that Trader Joe's apparently chose to make their sandwiches round with crimped edges, rather than using one of many possible alternative designs, could actually support Smucker's argument that these features are ornamental and have become associated with the Uncrustables brand.

What Happens Next
Trader Joe's has not yet responded to the lawsuit or requests for comment. The case will likely turn on whether the court finds that:

1. Post-sale confusion is likely: Do consumers associate the round, crimped design with Smucker's even when the product is out of its packaging?

2. The design is non-functional: Are there alternative ways to create a sealed crustless sandwich that don't require this specific round shape and crimping pattern?

3. Trade dress protection is appropriate: Should features that were once covered by an expired patent now receive potentially perpetual protection as brand identifiers?

This isn't Smucker's first legal action to protect Uncrustables—in 2022, the company sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Minneapolis startup called Gallant Tiger over similar concerns, demonstrating its willingness to aggressively defend what it views as its trade dress rights.

The Broader Implications
This case tests fundamental questions about intellectual property law:

Can companies leverage market success to claim perpetual protection over design features that were once patented functional innovations? Or does patent expiration free those features for public use, allowing competitors to offer similar products once the patent monopoly ends?

Where is the line between functional and ornamental? If there are multiple ways to achieve the same functional result, does that make a specific design choice protectable as trade dress?

Should post-sale confusion matter more than point-of-sale confusion? When a product's appearance itself—not its packaging—has become iconic, does copying that appearance confuse consumers even when the packaging clearly identifies a different manufacturer?

The outcome could have significant implications for food manufacturers and other industries where companies seek to extend intellectual property protection beyond traditional patent terms through trade dress claims based on brand recognition and market dominance.

Trade dress law must balance two competing interests: rewarding companies for building valuable brands while ensuring that functional innovations enter the public domain after patents expire, allowing competition and consumer choice.