"Crocs initiated an ITC investigation against a number of respondents it accused of importing into the United States footwear that infringed or diluted its U.S. Trademark Nos. 5,149,328 and 5,273,875. Crocs requested a general exclusion order (GEO) or a limited exclusion order (LEO). There were three active respondents and four defaulting respondents. The Commission ultimately found that Crocs had failed to show a likelihood of confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D Marks as to the active respondents and that those respondents were therefore not in violation of Section 337."
"As to the defaulting respondents, the ITC issued a LEO against them. Crocs appealed both the Commission's final determination as to the active respondents and its decision to issue a LEO instead of a GEO against the defaulting respondents. It filed its notice of appeal on December 22, 2023. The ITC argued that Crocs' appeal against the active respondents was time-barred and that it did not abuse its discretion in issuing the LEO instead of the GEO."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that International Trade Commission decisions containing mixed findings of violations and no violations yield distinct appeal windows for each finding. Crocs brought an ITC investigation alleging infringement and dilution of its 3D trademark registrations, seeking a general exclusion order or a limited exclusion order. The ITC found no violation as to three active respondents but issued a limited exclusion order against four defaulting respondents. Crocs filed a single notice of appeal; the ITC contended parts of the appeal were time-barred while Crocs argued the presidential review period affected appeal timing.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]