Uncrustables Fame Ruling Sets Up Functionality Fight Over Crimped Edge

J.M. Smucker Co.'s trademark dilution claim against Trader Joe’s will move forward after a federal judge found that Smucker sufficiently alleged the fame of four Uncrustables-related design marks.

The crux of this legal battle comes from J.M. Smucker Co, who claims that the ridged edge of Trader Joe’s frozen crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich copies the design of its Uncrustables product. Trader Joe’s responded, saying the design is simply for the purpose of containing the filling.

U.S. Judge, John R. Adams of the Northern District of Ohio, recently denied Trader Joe’s motion to dismiss Smucker federal trademark dilution claim and declined to transfer the case to California. At the pleading stage, he ruled, Smucker plausibly alleged that four Uncrustables-related marks were famous.

“The issue,” Finnegan partner Danny Awdeh told MLex, “is whether the shape is a brand or just a blueprint.”

Smucker’s filed the claim in October 2025, after Trader Joe’s launched the four-pack, individually wrapped, crustless peanut butter and jam sandwiches. While Smucker believes this is an “obvious copycat”, Trader Joe’s argues that their sandwiches are a different shape entirely and is only designed that way to hold the sandwich together.

The latter design is covered by Registration No. 2,623,577, which was issued in 2002 and has achieved incontestable status under Section 15 of the Lanham Act.

“These are rights you have to earn,” Danny said. “You have to earn them through the development of secondary meaning, through educating consumers, through spending money on advertising and through commercial success.”

Under the US Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in TraFix Devices v. Marketing Displays, a utility patent is “strong evidence” that the features claimed in it are functional. Speaking on that case Danny said that TraFix involved an expired patent, while the claims in Smucker’s patent were canceled during reexamination. That may be a “distinction without a difference".

“At the end of the day,” he explained, “all roads point to the same place: Is this driven by function? Whether it’s an expired patent or it’s an invalid claim, I think the question remains.”

“Registration places the burden on Trader Joe’s to establish functionality, while incontestability further strengthens Smucker’s position. "It’s a steep hill to climb, for the challenger.”

Smucker counters that its design is nonfunctional and says its competition has numerous commercially viable ways to make crustless sandwiches without copying it.

"The underlying interest is for competition to be fair and on a level playing field," Danny said. "If utility really does drive the analysis, then the fair outcome would be a shape that anyone could use. But if there are alternative ways to put out a product that can compete fairly without looking the same," he continued, "they’re obligated to do that."

Further, “Just because a product might have patents associated with it, and just because those patents expire or patent claims are invalidated, is not a green light to copy a product design,” Danny said.

“Companies are investing a lot of time and money and energy promoting the distinctive look of their product,” he explained. “When copycats and dupes can chisel away at that goodwill it’s concerning for both brand owners and consumers, alike.”

“Companies are investing a lot of time and money and energy promoting the distinctive look of their product,” he explained. “When copycats and dupes can chisel away at that goodwill it’s concerning for both brand owners and consumers, alike.”

Read "Uncrustables Fame Ruling Sets Up Functionality Fight Over Crimped Edge"