Patently-O

APRIL 17, 2024

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions.

False Advertising 115

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Patent 115

JD Supra Law

JANUARY 2, 2025

Effervescent, the Federal Circuit ruled that falsely advertising that a product feature is patented can constitute a violation of the Lanham Act. All the way back in 2006, Crocs sued several competitor shoe distributors for patent infringement. On October 3, 2024, in Crocs v. By: Sunstein LLP

False Advertising 61

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Patent 61

43(B)log

OCTOBER 12, 2021

7, 2021) Quidel appealed the grant of summary judgment to Siemens on Quidel’s Lanham Act false advertising claims and related state claims. Quidel alleged that Siemens advertised (1) but provided (2). And there was no triable issue on actual injury based on allegedly false advertising to the physicians.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Marketing 59

43(B)log

JUNE 30, 2022

28, 2022) The parties compete to provide online ordinations to individuals who wish to perform marriage ceremonies and accuse each other of misconduct in advertising. ULC Monastery was founded by George Freeman in 2006. Lexmark , the court held, didn’t supersede the presumption of injury for false comparative advertising.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Business 59

43(B)log

MARCH 14, 2024

11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with false advertising law! In 2006, Crocs sued now-plaintiff Double Diamond and Dawgs, its affiliate. Crocs, Inc., 2024 WL 1051951No. 23-cv-01790-PAB-KAS (D. The parties compete in the shoe market.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Branding 59

43(B)log

AUGUST 18, 2021

were valid and infringed, but the latter wasn’t counterfeited; SMRI’s dilution victory was vacated, but not its victories on deceptive trade practices, ACPA, false advertising, and unfair competition. SMRI ultimately sent one C&D in August 2006, and filed suit in June 2011. Here the court considers acquiescence and laches.

Cease and Desist 64

Cease and Desist False Advertising Registration Licensing 64

LexBlog IP

MARCH 17, 2024

Here, Crocs sued defendants in 2006. Defendant Diamond Distribution then sued Crocs for defamation, false advertising, and related state torts. The holding, at 12(b)(6); The Court finds that the complaint plausibly establishes that the press release contains materially false statements. Crocs moved to dismiss.

False Advertising 52

False Advertising Settlement Advertising Advertising 52