Crocs, Inc. filed a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision regarding the application of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act. This decision reversed a district court ruling in favor of Crocs against Dawgs, Inc., which claimed Crocs misled consumers by advertising its shoe material, 'Croslite,' as 'patented' and 'exclusive.' Dawgs alleged that this misrepresentation violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits false descriptions of goods and services that mislead consumers.
The Federal Circuit's holding threatens to turn every expired patent, invalidated patent, and marking mistake into a potential weapon lying at hand for competitors and plaintiffs' attorneys to wield against them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision holding that Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act does apply to a party's false claims regarding patent ownership.
Dawgs contended that Crocs misrepresented the qualities of its product by claiming that its material is 'patented,' which could mislead consumers.
The Lanham Act prohibits false or misleading descriptions of goods, including those that misrepresent the nature or characteristics of a product.
Collection
[
|
...
]