直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

False Claims of Patent Protection at the “Sole” of Lanham Act Case

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.

Tags

Lanham Act, unfair competition, false advertising, summary judgment

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Trademark and Brand Management

Advertising

Related Industries

Consumer Goods and Services

Consumer Products

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

P. Michael Nielsen
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2723
Email
Christopher B. Anderson
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2765
Email
Sonja W. Sahlsten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4329
Email

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

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP