A federal judge has ruled that J.M. Smucker's trademark lawsuit against Trader Joe's over crustless frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwiches can move forward, keeping alive a legal battle over who owns the rights to a round, crimped-edge sandwich shape. U.S. District Judge John Adams found that Smucker had shown customers associate the design of its Uncrustables sandwiches with the brand, allowing the case to proceed rather than be tossed out.
The ruling, issued Friday, is the latest twist in a fight that began when Smucker filed a federal lawsuit against Trader Joe's in Ohio in 2025, as reported by Boston 25 News. Smucker, based in Orrville, Ohio, claims Trader Joe's frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwiches violate its trademark because they share the same round shape and crimped edges as Uncrustables, and because Trader Joe's used packaging colored too similarly to an Uncrustables box. Smucker is asking the court not only for restitution but also for Trader Joe's to hand over all of its products and packaging so Smucker can destroy them.
Trader Joe's has pushed back hard on the idea that its sandwich copies Smucker's design at all. The grocery chain says its version is actually shaped like a squircle — a square sandwich with rounded edges — rather than the round shape Uncrustables uses, and that the crimped edges are simply necessary to keep the filling from spilling out, not a copy of anyone's branding.
Trader Joe's Says Crimping Is Function, Not Branding
Trader Joe's has argued that Smucker should not be allowed to monopolize a crimped design at all, and that the current Uncrustables packaging, introduced in 2024, was not famous enough to support a federal trademark dilution claim. The company also said Smucker is reaching too far by comparing Uncrustables' appearance and cartoon avatar to instantly recognizable marks like Nike's swoosh or McDonald's golden arches. That functionality argument lines up with a broader legal doctrine cited in court filings: trademark law generally prohibits companies from claiming exclusive rights to product features that are essential to how something works or is made, according to Booth Law. Trader Joe's contends the crimped seal exists purely to keep the sandwich intact, not to signal a brand.
Smucker, for its part, says it has devoted significant resources over the past 20 years to developing Uncrustables and protecting the brand, and Judge Adams pointed to that history of advertising, sales, and trademark registrations in denying Trader Joe's motion to dismiss the case on Friday. The judge also denied Trader Joe's request to move the case to California, even though the company is headquartered there and its frozen sandwiches are supplied by a third-party manufacturer located in California. Trader Joe's had asked the court to dismiss the case back in January, and its packaging features a photograph of a sandwich with a bite taken out of one side — a detail Smucker points to as part of the alleged similarity.
From Patents to Trademarks
This isn't Smucker's first attempt to lock down legal ownership of the crustless sandwich concept. The company originally relied on a 1999 utility patent for a “sealed crustless sandwich,” but that protection expired around 2019 after key claims were cancelled during Patent Office re-examinations, according to background reporting cited by Invention City. Years earlier, in April 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had already rejected Smucker's attempt to patent additional crimping processes, with examiners noting that crimped edges are functionally similar to techniques long used for ravioli or pie crusts. Having lost that patent fight two decades ago, Smucker shifted its legal strategy toward trademark and trade dress protections over the sandwich's look and packaging — a path that can, unlike a utility patent's fixed term, offer protection indefinitely if a design is proven distinctive.
Both companies' competing crustless sandwiches were displayed side by side in Detroit in October 2025, illustrating just how similar the two products look on a store shelf. Trader Joe's debuted its own crustless peanut butter and strawberry jam sandwiches that same year, pricing a four-pack at $3.79 — undercutting Uncrustables' typical retail price of $5.29 to $5.99, according to Reader's Digest. That price gap sits at the heart of why Smucker moved to defend its turf in court.
A Billion-Dollar Sandwich Business
The stakes go well beyond lunchboxes. Smucker has disclosed in corporate filings that Uncrustables now produces roughly 1.5 billion sandwiches a year and generates $1 billion in annual sales, a scale Smucker says justifies aggressive enforcement of its intellectual property. The brand's reach has also stretched deep into professional sports: an investigation found NFL teams consume at least 80,000 Uncrustables sandwiches annually, with the Denver Broncos alone going through 700 a week, per reporting highlighted by Barstool Sports. Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce added to that visibility in 2023 when he said on his podcast that he eats the sandwiches more than any other food.
That athletic dominance now has a challenger of its own. In May 2026, the NFL Players Association struck an exclusive partnership with Jams, a startup PB&J brand backed by current and former NFL players, to bring an alternative frozen sandwich into team facilities. As generic store brands and new entrants like Jams compete on price and shelf space, the outcome of Smucker's case against Trader Joe's could help define how far food companies can stretch trade dress law to protect a product's design once the patents behind it have run out.
