Smucker Sues Trader Joe’s Over Uncrustables Lookalike Sandwiches; Dismissal Motion Filed

J.M. Smucker Company filed a federal complaint in October 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that Trader Joe’s new Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches copy the look and packaging of Smucker’s Uncrustables and attempt to trade off Smucker’s goodwill. The complaint describes Trader Joe’s product and packaging as an “obvious copycat” and alleges Trader Joe’s is “attempting to ‘trade off of Smucker’s valuable goodwill.’”

Smucker framed the dispute as one over trademarks and trade dress, listing several U.S. trademark registrations and asserting trade dress protection in two product designs identified in the complaint. The filing specifically cites U.S. registration number 2,623,577 and describes the Uncrustables trade dress as a round, pie-like sandwich with a “distinct peripheral undulated crimping.” Smucker also notes packaging that depicts a round crustless sandwich with a crimped edge and a bite taken out of it, which the complaint says Trader Joe’s mimics.

The complaint advances a range of claims: trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Smucker seeks damages, costs, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief under the Lanham Act and Ohio law, and the complaint includes language asserting Smucker has invested heavily in Uncrustables’ brand identity, the filing states Smucker “has spent over a billion dollars developing Uncrustables and the ‘goodwill’ associated with them.”

Trader Joe’s response entered the public record later: on Feb. 25, 2026 multiple legal-industry outlets reported that Trader Joe’s filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and, alternatively, to transfer venue. The reports do not include the text of Trader Joe’s filing, the legal grounds Trader Joe’s asserts for dismissal, the district to which Trader Joe’s seeks transfer, or a docket number; those details are not available in the reporting summarized by the complaint materials.

Industry context in the complaint underscores Uncrustables’ market history and Smucker’s reasoning for targeting Trader Joe’s. The complaint and related summaries note Uncrustables have been sold by retailers since 2000, and while other premade frozen peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches exist, Smucker focuses on Trader Joe’s because of what it alleges are closely similar product shapes and packaging styles. Intellectual property attorney Geoffrey Lottenberg summarized the legal issue succinctly: “the key to this case is Smucker proving that it has strong brand rights, and that consumers are likely to be confused into believing the Trader Joe’s sandwiches are affiliated with Smucker’s.”

The immediate procedural posture is now the Trader Joe’s motion to dismiss or transfer and any subsequent filings on the Northern District of Ohio docket. The record provided so far does not include the motion’s briefs, Smucker’s opposition, a judge assignment, or a hearing date; those docket entries will determine whether the court will consider venue questions or resolve the case on the pleadings.