Can False Claims of Patent Protection Land You in the False Advertising Dawg(s) House? | Crowell & Moring LLP

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.24

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024).

This case began when Crocs sued several competitor shoe distributors for patent infringement. The competitors, U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc., Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd., and Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Dawgs”), responded with a counterclaim, alleging that Crocs’ claims that its footwear was patent protected were false in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and that it was harmed by Crocs’ false advertisements and commercial misrepresentations to footwear consumers.

Dawgs alleged that Crocs had engaged in a “campaign to mislead its customers” about characteristics of “Croslite,” the primary material comprising Crocs’ footwear products. Dawgs claimed that Crocs’ website falsely described Croslite as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” By promoting Croslite as “patented,” Dawgs claimed that Crocs misled current and potential customers to believe that “Crocs’ molded footwear is made of a material that is different than any other footwear,” thereby deceiving consumers into believing that its competitors’ molded footwear products are made of inferior material.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Crocs’ false claims to have “patented” Croslite were not actionable under Section 43(a)(1)(B) because any claim that a product was patented was directed to inventorship, and could not form the basis for a cause of action under the Lanham Act. On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that the falsehood that Croslite was patented went to the nature and qualities of Croslite, which Crocs advertised as ‘exclusive,’ ‘proprietary,’ and/or ‘patented,’” causing customers to believe that “Crocs’ molded footwear is made of a material that is different than any other footwear.” Based on this finding, Dawgs’ false advertising claims were maintained, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

[1] Crocs admitted that it was never granted a patent for Croslite both in its briefing and at oral argument. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 at 7 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024).

China L. Smith

Associate

She/Her/Hers

dGFzbWl0aEBjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==

Emily Kappers

Counsel

She/Her/Hers

ZWthcHBlcnNAY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20=

Helen O. Ogunyanwo

Counsel

She/Her/Hers

aG9ndW55YW53b0Bjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==

Preetha Chakrabarti

Partner

She/Her/Hers

cGNoYWtyYWJhcnRpQGNyb3dlbGwuY29t

Anne Elise Herold Li

Partner

YWxpQGNyb3dlbGwuY29t

Client Alert | 8 min read | 10.15.24

FTC Significantly Curtails Long-Awaited Changes to HSR Premerger Notification Rules and Procedures

The Federal Trade Commission voted unanimously to pass a final rule implementing significant changes to the premerger notification regime under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. The Department of Justice concurred with the vote. The final rule significantly reins back the agency’s proposed rule issued in June 2023—a proposal that would have imposed substantial new burdens on merging parties and prompted widespread criticism. The final rule is still the most significant overhaul of the HSR premerger notification requirements in decades, and the new requirements will impose additional time and expense on merging parties, some of which can be mitigated by putting processes in place in advance....

Client Alert | 15 min read | 10.15.24

The European Commission’s Draft Guidelines on Exclusionary Abuses: Towards Stricter Enforcement?

Client Alert | 9 min read | 10.14.24

Cybersecurity Matured: DoD Finalizes Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program

Client Alert | 6 min read | 10.14.24

State AGs Challenge Nasdaq’s Diversity Disclosure Rule as Discriminatory

View All Insights