A federal judge has allowed J.M. Smucker’s trademark case against Trader Joe’s to move forward, setting up a dispute over whether the familiar shape and presentation of a frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwich function as protectable brand identity. The Aug. 28 order denied Trader Joe’s motion to dismiss the case and its request to transfer the litigation from Ohio to California.
The ruling is procedural. It does not establish that Trader Joe’s infringed Smucker’s rights, copied the Uncrustables brand or owes damages. It means Smucker’s allegations were sufficient to survive this stage and proceed toward discovery. That distinction matters in any legal story—and especially in a case where ordinary product features are being asked to carry extraordinary brand value.
The dispute is about recognition, not the recipe
Smucker does not claim exclusive ownership of frozen crustless sandwiches as a category. Its complaint focuses on trade dress and trademarks associated with how Uncrustables look: a generally round sandwich, a crimped sealed edge, packaging colors and a product image showing a bite removed from the sandwich.
Trader Joe’s has argued that its product is not round but a “squircle”—a square with rounded corners—and that crimping is functional because it keeps the filling inside. The company also challenged whether elements of Smucker’s newer packaging are sufficiently famous to support a federal dilution claim. Those arguments go to a central tension in design protection: a feature can help customers identify a source while also performing a practical job.
Trade dress law can protect the overall visual impression of a product or its packaging when it identifies the source and is not impermissibly functional. Designers experience that principle as a business question long before it becomes a legal one. Which elements are distinctive? Are they used consistently? Do customers associate them with the company? Could a competitor design around them without losing a feature necessary for the product to work?
Repetition turns design into memory
Uncrustables demonstrates how a simple form can become a brand system. The circular silhouette, sealed edge and cutaway imagery communicate portability, containment and what is inside. Repeated across freezer cases, advertising and lunchboxes, those cues can become more memorable than a wordmark alone.
That is why packaging and product design deserve the same strategic discipline as naming. Consistent proportions, photography, color, closure and display create recognition at the shelf. They also create evidence. A company trying to protect trade dress benefits from a documented design system and a history of deliberate, repeated use rather than a collection of changing creative decisions assembled after a dispute begins.
Private-label retailers create a particularly difficult environment. Their products often need to communicate a familiar category promise quickly, sometimes while sitting near national brands. Similarity can help shoppers understand the product. Too much similarity can invite claims that the retailer is borrowing the recognition another company paid to build.
Functional design sets the boundary
The crimped edge illustrates the boundary problem. It may create a recognizable visual rhythm, but it also seals bread around a filling. Granting one company broad control over a useful construction method could restrict legitimate competition. The later stages of the case will require a more developed factual record about consumer recognition, alternative designs, functionality and the overall impression created by the products and packages.
Judge John Adams concluded only that Smucker had plausibly alleged fame and protectable rights at the pleading stage. The order also kept the case in the Northern District of Ohio, giving weight to Smucker’s choice of forum after finding the relevant factors relatively balanced. The Associated Press independently reported the decision and the competing positions.
The court has not decided whether shoppers are confused or whether Trader Joe’s infringed any protected rights. Discovery and later motions may change the shape of the dispute. That procedural distinction matters: a surviving complaint is a signal that the design questions deserve evidence, not a ruling that either side owns the sandwich form.
For brand leaders, the lesson is not to trademark every curve. It is to identify the few visual cues that genuinely carry recognition, use them consistently and understand which ones exist because the product needs to work. Strong design can become intellectual property. Strong strategy knows where that property ends.