In a significant ruling, the CAFC applied Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act to false claims about patent ownership combined with misleading advertisements, affirming consumer protection.
The federal court emphasized that false advertising claims under the Lanham Act can arise from misrepresentations regarding a product's nature, characteristics, or qualities, thus impacting consumer decisions.
Significantly, this decision reinforces that the Lanham Act can be invoked against parties making misleading advertisements, even in the context of patent disputes, protecting consumers from being misled.
The court explicitly rejected Crocs' argument that there was no Section 43(a) cause of action here, signaling a broader interpretation of false advertising under federal law in patent cases.
Collection
[
|
...
]