Smucker argued in a cease-and-desist letter, first reported by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, that Gallant Tiger’s PB&J with spherical, fluted edges and bundle design that reveals a sandwich with a chunk taken out of it are similar to Uncrustables, creating “a likelihood of consumer confusion” that harms the Uncrustables trademark.
“As soon as I got the letter, I felt a pit in my stomach,” mentioned Kamal Mohamed, the 33-year-old chef and entrepreneur behind Gallant Tiger.
But Mohamed’s not biting on Smucker’s argument. He launched Gallant Tiger in October with aspirations of constructing it the Ben & Jerry’s of the crustless-round-sandwich trade — much less processed and with quirky flavors. The individually packaged sandwiches are full of peanut butter and chai-spiced pear butter or blueberry jam spiked with bourbon and sage. They’re offered in a half-dozen espresso outlets and an unbiased market in Minneapolis, retailing for $4 to $5 — far pricier than Uncrustables, that are a couple of greenback a bit and often offered in packs of 15.
“We just don’t think from a trademark perspective that this is protecting the consumer,” he mentioned. “All they’re doing is stifling consumer choice.”
Mohamed and his authorized counsel known as Smucker’s techniques “bullying” to small companies.
“I had just raised money from family and friends — 80 percent of my investors are women,” Mohamed added, describing a few of his traders as smaller-scale meals bloggers.
In an announcement, Smucker mentioned it helps honest competitors and mentioned the corporate is merely defending a 20-year funding within the Uncrustables model that has led to the spherical form changing into an “instantly recognizable” signifier.
“The Uncrustables design has received a federally registered trademark that Smucker, as a trademark owner, has an obligation to protect,” Frank Cirillo, a spokesperson for Smucker, mentioned in an e mail. He mentioned the corporate is serious about an “amicable resolution” with Gallant Tiger.
For such a easy sandwich, the Uncrustable has had a typically controversial historical past.
In 1998, Smucker purchased the maker of the frozen crustless sandwiches it could later model as Uncrustables. Over the subsequent twenty years, Uncrustables turned a star product within the Smucker secure, snacked on by NBA stars, toddlers in day care and California wildfire first responders.
In the course of defending what it describes as a billion-dollar brand, Smucker vigorously enforced patents round Uncrustables, main some intellectual-property consultants to criticize the U.S. patent system as being too keen to grant patents for commonplace concepts — corresponding to making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Adam Jaffe, a Brandeis University economics professor, mentioned in a 2005 Wall Street Journal article that Smucker’s controversial Patent No. 6,004,596 “never should have been issued.” The patent for a “sealed, crustless sandwich” was granted in 1999.
The firm hasn’t at all times prevailed in attempting to fend off opponents. In 2001, it points a cease-and-desist to Albie’s, a small Michigan-based grocery chain, for promoting crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Albie’s prevailed and requested for the patent to be reexamined; it was later rescinded in 2005.
Smucker’s grievance towards Gallant Tiger hinges not on patents however its logos — protections the corporate has on its product’s logos, symbols and different identifiers. In a Dec. 8 response to the cease-and-desist letter, an legal professional for Gallant Tiger argued its sandwiches’ spherical form and fluted edges are purposeful options that ought to exempt them from trademark safety.
“There are not very many shapes that a sandwich can be made into,” the response learn. “… Thus, it is our conclusion that a round shape for a crustless sandwich is functional because there are a dearth of viable alternatives.”
Mohamed and his lawyer each dismissed Smucker’s grievance concerning the packaging displaying the sandwich with a chunk taken out, saying it’s no completely different from the photographs on packages for Reese’s peanut butter cups or Marie Callender’s rooster pot pies.
“For any stuffed product, you have to show what’s inside of it. Why do they own the bite?” Mohamed mentioned in reference to Smucker.
Mohamed mentioned that, in the end, he doesn’t need to combat Smucker — he needs to promote sandwiches. But he mentioned he can do this provided that he holds his floor.
“We feel like out of principal, we don’t back down from this,” he mentioned. “We think it’s important that other food brands understand that just because you receive a cease-and-desist, that doesn’t mean [your opponents] are in the right.”