By Christopher Kuo and Jesse Newman
Trader Joe's over the summer began stocking its stores with a new line of frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwich snacks, the crusts trimmed off and the edges pressed together.
Food giant J.M. Smucker wants them all destroyed.
Smucker has marketed Uncrustables, its own line of premade PB&Js, since the 1990s. Tucked into schoolchildren's lunches by the millions and munched by lawyers and professional athletes, Uncrustables generated approximately $920 million in sales in the company's most recent fiscal year.
Trader Joe's version -- which it calls Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches -- is an "obvious copycat," according to a lawsuit Smucker filed last week in a federal court in Ohio. Smucker is seeking monetary damages, along with the destruction of Trader Joe's stock.
Trader Joe's didn't respond to requests for comment.
The PB&J fight is the latest front in a long-running battle between national food brands and private-label alternatives sold by supermarkets and grocery chains themselves. The two camps have long had an uneasy relationship -- store brands typically sell for less but are more profitable for retailers. Often they are stocked near the big brands.
Retailers behind private-label products, including Walmart, Kroger and Target, are among the biggest customers of major U.S. food companies.
Private-label products made up 20% of total store dollar sales over the past year, according to market-research firm NIQ. As U.S. consumers grapple with rising food prices, store brands' sales have been rising, growing 3.9% year over year.
Diane Covello, co-director of the Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Law Clinic at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said increasing competitive pressure can prompt companies to sue: "It's the standard situation where somebody sees that there's a competitor with a rising market share."
Competition versus copies
Other companies are heading to court to protect their brands. Mondelez, the maker of Oreo, Ritz Crackers and Wheat Thins, in May sued discount grocer Aldi, alleging that the chain was deceiving customers via store-brand cookies and crackers that copied the packaging of some of Mondelez's signature snacks. Aldi didn't respond to requests for comment.
In June, Lululemon filed a lawsuit accusing Costco of selling copycat versions of its jackets, sweatshirts and pants. In a court filing, Costco denied that it infringed on Lululemon's intellectual property.
Smucker has defended its crust-free intellectual property before. In 2020, the company issued a letter to Los Angeles-based Chubby Snacks over that company's prepackaged PB&J sandwiches, claiming the products were too similar. Chubby reformed its sandwiches in the shape of clouds.
Smucker sued Chubby in 2024, accusing the company of illegally using the Uncrustables trademarks in online advertising. The two companies agreed to a settlement in July, and Chubby has ceased operations.
In 2022, Smucker sent a cease and desist letter to Gallant Tiger, a Minneapolis-based snack startup that produces similar sandwiches. Kamal Mohamed, the startup's co-founder, said the company's lawyers responded to Smucker but never heard anything more after the initial letter. Gallant Tiger didn't change its products.
Smucker's suit against Trader Joe's alleges that the grocer infringed on trademarks by mimicking Uncrustables' round, pie-like shape and "distinct peripheral undulated crimping." It also claims that Trader Joe's ripped off Uncrustables's packaging and the signature blue color of its logo.
Alongside damages, Smucker is seeking to bar Trader Joe's from making any more of its PB&J product.
A Smucker spokesman said it has no issue with others selling prepackaged, crustless sandwiches. "Our focus is solely on protecting the unique trademarked design that represents the high quality associated with the Uncrustables brand and preventing consumer confusion caused by imitation."
To win its case, Smucker must demonstrate that consumers are likely to confuse Trader Joe's sandwiches with Uncrustables, said Michael Kelber, chair of the intellectual property practice group at the law firm Neal, Gerber and Eisenberg.
A growing number of brands in recent years are suing over copycat products, Kelber said. "It seems to be having a moment."
Private-label pressure
Private-label products have proliferated across supermarkets and big-box stores over the decades and now range from Greek yogurt to bacon. Breakfast syrups, dog food and meat alternatives were recently among the categories with the largest private-label share gains, according to analysts at Jefferies.
Susan Morris, chief executive of supermarket operator Albertsons, said on a conference call this month that more shoppers are seeking store brands as a way to save money. "What we've seen from the consumer is a continued focus on value, a shift to trading down," she said.
Kraft Heinz, McCormick and Smucker are among the food companies that recently have been most exposed to incursions from store brands, according to Wall Street analysts. Others, such as chocolate maker Hershey, have said that they are stepping up innovation as they compete for supermarket shelf space.
McCormick said its branded products are performing well, outpacing private-label counterparts by volume. Kraft Heinz didn't immediately comment.
Retailers that market private-label products have invested heavily over the years, seeking to match big brands on quality and variety. In a 2023 survey from McKinsey, 80% of respondents said one of their top reasons for buying more private-label products was because the quality was equal to that of brand names, for less cost.
"We've had generations, baby boomers and older, who really looked at private brands as a second-rate item," said grocery consultant Phil Lempert. "It doesn't have a stigma with Gen Z or millennials at all."
Write to Christopher Kuo at chris.kuo@wsj.com and Jesse Newman at jesse.newman@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
October 20, 2025 05:30 ET (09:30 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.