Can You Trademark Peanut Butter and Jelly? Smucker’s Says Yes.; The New York Times, October 17, 2025

Yan Zhuang, The New York Times; Can You Trademark Peanut Butter and Jelly? Smucker’s Says Yes.

 "J.M. Smucker, the maker of Uncrustables, is suing Trader Joe’s, accusing the grocery store chain of infringing on its trademarks by selling a copycat version of its popular snack...

You generally can’t trademark foods. Sandwich recipes, or certain combinations of sandwich ingredients, are also “quite plainly not a copyrightable work,” an appeals judge ruled in 2015 in a case involving a Puerto Rico man who had attempted to trademark his chicken sandwich.

But you can trademark the specific shape or configuration of a food product. In this case, Smucker’s says, it has trademarked “a round pie-like shape with distinct peripheral undulated crimping” — a design it says Trader Joe’s has copied.

Smucker’s also accused Trader Joe’s of infringing on its trademark image of “a round crustless sandwich with a bite taken out showing filling on the inside,” which the grocery store chain uses on its packaging.

“Smucker does not take issue with others in the marketplace selling prepackaged, frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwiches. But it cannot allow others to use Smucker’s valuable intellectual property to make such sales,” the company said in its filing."

Sued for Playing With Toys?; The New York Times, August 5, 2025

 Chantel Tattoli, The New York Times ; Sued for Playing With Toys?

"When Paul Welander, a health care worker in Britain, heard about a lawsuit that the maker of Calico Critters toys recently filed against a social media content creator, he wasn’t totally surprised.

The critters, introduced in 1985, are tiny velvety-bodied animals — rabbits, mice, moles, bears, beavers, badgers, pigs, penguins — dressed in modest clothes and sold in sets as families.

The lawsuit alleges that the creator committed copyright and trademark infringement by making videos that portray the twee toys in scandalous situations: having affairs, driving drunk, taking drugs. Videos not unlike the crassly captioned pictures of the toys, also known as Sylvanians, that Mr. Welander, 51, started sharing on social media back in 2016."

Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory; The Washington Post, August 1, 2018

Antonia Farzan, The Washington Post; Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory

"In June 2015, Gordon filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the greeting card company, saying that the cards were expressive works protected by the First Amendment. Gordon appealed.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, allowing his lawsuit to continue.

In an opinion published Monday, the three-judge panel said that Gordon’s lawsuit against Drape Creative, Inc. and Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, Inc. presents a question that should be tried before a jury: Did the greeting cards add any artistic value that would be protected by the First Amendment, or did they simply appropriate the goodwill associated with Gordon’s trademark?"

Tito's Tacos to change name following trademark tangle; Brattleboro Reformer, 10/3/16

Robert Audette, Brattleboro Reformer; Tito's Tacos to change name following trademark tangle:

"Victoroff requested that the Reformer "immediately remove the aforementioned infringing material from its website, immediately notify the source of the infringing content of this notice, inform them of their duty to remove the infringing material immediately, and notify them to cease any further posting of infringing material to The Brattleboro Reformer News website in the future."

The Reformer has declined to take down the picture on First Amendment grounds.

In a response, Fredric D. Rutberg, the president of New England Newspapers Inc., which owns the Reformer, refused to remove the picture from the Reformer's website.

"The photo in question depicts a local food vendor whose sign identifies his business as Tito's Tacos," wrote Rutberg. "While this use of the name Tito's Tacos may indeed infringe on your client's registered trademark, it is our opinion that the photo in question does not constitute an infringement of your client's trademark. At best it is a 'fair use' of trademarked material."

"Tito's greatly respects your newspaper's First Amendment rights of free speech," Victoroff responded in an email to Rutberg, "but the use of its trademarked name in the [photo and news story] seriously dilutes and erodes its trademark. ... Every day the Tito's Tacos family must defend and protect its trademark rights from death by 1,000 cuts or risk losing its name and trademark.""