October 29, 2024
Authored and Edited by P. Michael Nielsen; Christopher B. Anderson; Sonja W. Sahlsten
In Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 22-2160 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s entry of summary judgment and held that false claims of patent protection can give rise to a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.
Beginning in 2006, Crocs sued various shoe competitors for infringement in a group of cases spanning multiple forums. U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. and other defendants (collectively “Dawgs”) filed a counterclaim, alleging that Crocs’ description of “Croslite”—the primary material used in Crocs’ molded footwear—as being “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive”—deceived consumers into believing that its competitors’ products are made of inferior material compared to Crocs. In Dawgs’ view, this violated Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act which prohibits a “false or misleading representation of fact, which … misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities” of another’s goods. The district court granted Crocs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding Dawgs’ counterclaim failed as a matter of law because these terms were claims of “inventorship,” and did not mislead customers about the nature, characteristics, or quality of the products.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. It was undisputed that Crocs’ statements were false because Crocs was never granted a patent on the molded material. The Court rejected Crocs’ arguments that the term “patented” was akin to a claim of attribution of authorship and thus did not give rise to a cause of action under the Court’s precedent. Rather, the term “patented” as used in Crocs’ advertising was directed at the nature, characteristics, or qualities of Crocs’ molded footwear and suggested its competitors’ material is inferior. The Court held that false claims of patent protection on a product feature in a manner that causes consumer confusion about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of a product can be a violation of 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act and remanded for further proceedings.
Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Conference
19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe
May 19-20, 2026
Amsterdam
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.