Article
When copycats cross the line: What Smucker’s lawsuit means for private-label products
FoodBev Media
by Andrew Lux
Litigation Associate Andrew Lux authored an article for FoodBev Media regarding Smucker’s lawsuit against Trader Joe’s over its Uncrustable sandwich. The piece explores how the case may reshape trademark and trade dress standards governing private-label ‘dupe’ products in the grocery sector.
Excerpts:
The latest in an on-going legal battle between food manufacturers and grocery chains presents a notable risk to a common practice for many retailers: offering private-label products that resemble popular brands to communicate 'same product, lower price' to consumers.
In The J.M. Smucker Company vs Trader Joe’s Company (N.D. Ohio, Case No. 5:25-cv-02181), Smucker claims that Trader Joe’s new crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich that “mimics” the distinctive appearance and packaging of its popular Uncrustables brand violates federal trademark and Ohio state law. Specifically, Smucker argues that by intentionally copying its “pictorial representations of a round crustless sandwich in whole and with a bite taken out of it showing filling on the inside,” Trader Joe’s infringed upon its protected trademarks and trade dress.
Trademarks and trade dress both protect a company’s brand identity by preventing others from using confusingly similar marks or designs that are likely to cause consumers to mistakenly believe that a product comes from the owner of the trademark. But they do so in different ways. A trademark is a recognisable identifier, such as a word, design, logo or colour, that is associated with a business. Trade dress, on the other hand, refers to the overall visual appearance of a product or its packaging.
Resources
