The timeless adage that the finest things in life often present themselves in groups of three appears to have found a modern-day reflection in the courtroom battles defining today’s retail landscape. This year, the notion rings especially true within the intricate and frequently overlooked sphere of intellectual property law—specifically, the niche area of trade dress protection. Once confined to legal specialists and brand strategists, this concept has abruptly entered broader public conversation, spurred by a trio of prominent lawsuits in which beloved national brands have taken aim at large retailers accused of mimicking their packaging or product design.
The sequence began earlier this summer when the snack conglomerate Mondelez, best known for its array of globally recognized treats, initiated legal proceedings against discount grocer Aldi. The allegation centered on Aldi’s sale of cookie packages whose visual designs, color schemes, and overall presentation allegedly echoed those of Mondelez’s own brands. This was quickly followed by a separate lawsuit from athletic apparel powerhouse Lululemon, which targeted Costco for offering clothing items said to bear too-close a resemblance to Lululemon’s signature styles. As the trend continued, household staple producer JM Smucker joined the fray by accusing Trader Joe’s of producing frozen peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches that, in the company’s view, mirrored the form, packaging, and concept of its well-known Uncrustables line. In each case, while the precise legal arguments and factual nuances differ, the overarching spectacle of top-tier consumer brands squaring off against massive retailers has seized both industry attention and public fascination.
Legal experts point out that these conflicts are not isolated incidents but may instead represent the early signs of an accelerating trend. According to attorneys interviewed by Business Insider, various economic factors and shifts in consumer behavior are converging to make such trade dress disputes more prevalent. Paul Reilly, a partner at Baker Botts who specializes in branding, advertising, and copyright law, suggests that, beyond abstract legal principles, the increased visibility of these cases reflects a fundamentally economic reality. As inflation and rising production costs continue to pressure household budgets, growing numbers of consumers are choosing retailer-owned or private-label products over more expensive national brands. Examples abound: Costco’s Kirkland Signature, Walmart’s Great Value, and Target’s Cat & Jack are all emblematic of this movement. These private labels, owned and managed directly by retailers, compete alongside—yet distinct from—national brands, which rely on placement across multiple chains.
The appeal of private labels is undeniable. Consumers increasingly report comparable satisfaction between national and in-store brands, often perceiving the latter as offering similar quality at significantly reduced prices. For example, sales data from Amazon and Whole Foods reveal that purchases of their private-label offerings rose by approximately fifteen percent over the prior year, a notable boost disclosed during the launch of Amazon’s new grocery initiative. Similarly, market research from Numerator indicates that roughly a quarter of all items sold in the United States now originate from private-label lines. Virtually every American household, their survey suggests, has bought at least one such product within the past twelve months—a telling indicator that this preference is both widespread and still expanding. Reilly summarizes the situation succinctly: modern shoppers frequently seek products comparable to familiar brand-name goods, and they are often delighted to find them under store-label alternatives.
Yet this push toward imitation and inspiration occupies a legally precarious terrain. The delicate question that arises again and again is deceptively simple: are consumers genuinely confused? This query, at the heart of trade dress litigation, determines whether a company’s distinctive packaging and appearance have been unlawfully appropriated. As Mark Simpson, a partner at Saul Ewing who advises clients on intellectual property enforcement, explains, these disputes often hinge as much on human psychology as on law itself. Consumers, consciously or subconsciously influenced by color, shape, and presentation, may believe two products share a common source when they do not. In the Smucker’s case, for instance, attorneys highlighted social media posts in which individuals mistakenly attributed Trader Joe’s sandwiches to the Uncrustables brand—evidence suggesting that the resemblance was more than coincidental.
Another notable dynamic influencing these lawsuits involves the business relationships—or the lack thereof—between the litigating parties. The brands bringing these high-profile suits, such as Mondelez, Smucker, and Lululemon, generally do not have wholesale or supplier partnerships with the retailers they are suing. This independence means they can pursue legal action without endangering existing distribution agreements or losing vital shelf space. By contrast, retailers like Walmart and Target, each possessing extensive private-label portfolios of their own, maintain intricate partnerships with major national brands. Consequently, any disputes that arise between them and their suppliers are far more likely to be resolved quietly behind closed doors, as both parties have mutual incentives to preserve ongoing business relationships and keep public optics stable.
The competitive tension in the marketplace nonetheless continues to intensify. Sharon Urias, partner and leader of the intellectual property group at Greenspoon Marder, notes that as the retail sector grows more crowded, companies increasingly push the boundaries of what can be deemed acceptable mimicry. Packaging design has become a strategic battleground, used not only to attract attention but also to evoke the familiarity of premium counterparts. Urias observes a surge in aggressive marketing approaches through visual presentation—a tactic intended to win over consumers at first glance, yet one that frequently draws accusations of deception or unfair competition.
For established brands, enforcing legal rights through a lawsuit serves not merely as a protective measure but also as a public declaration of intent. Bringing a case against an alleged imitator sends a clear message to competitors: duplication, however subtle, will not be tolerated. As one expert succinctly framed it, the principle remains constant—if a company fails to defend its intellectual property, it risks eroding the very exclusivity that defines it. In this evolving landscape, where private labels and national brands jostle for dominance across grocery aisles and apparel racks alike, the courts may well become the ultimate arbiters of how far inspiration may go before it transforms into imitation.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/brands-taking-retailers-to-court-over-store-brand-dupes-2025-10
