Crocs v. Dawgs is a legal battle involving Crocs and Double Diamond over false advertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs claims that false representation prohibitions should apply only to tangible product attributes. However, the statutory language also refers to services, which are intangible. Double Diamond counters that Crocs misrepresented its 'Croslite' foam as 'patented,' when in fact it was unpatented and similar to EVA foam used by competitors. This case highlights the complexities of patent-related marketing and consumer perception.
Crocs is attempting to limit the Lanham Act's prohibition on misrepresentations to tangible attributes, arguing this should exclude intangible legal designations like patent status.
Double Diamond alleges Crocs falsely marketed its 'Croslite' foam material as 'patented,' creating a misleading impression of uniqueness or superiority.
The ongoing legal challenge raises the issue of whether the Lanham Act's false advertising provisions can encompass claims related to intangible product characteristics.
The litigation has its roots in a design patent infringement lawsuit dating back to 2006, showcasing a long history of disputes between the two companies.
Collection
[
|
...
]