Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., et al., decided 03 Oct 24

This is an appeal from a district court’s summary judgment in favor of Crocs, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit where Dawgs, Inc. counterclaimed for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The district court, citing precedent, ruled that Dawgs’ claim of false advertising regarding Crocs’ misrepresentation of its Croslite material as patented was not actionable. The appeals court reversed this decision, holding that falsely claiming that a product feature is patented, and advertising this claim in a way that misleads consumers about the product's qualities, is actionable under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act. The case is remanded for further proceedings.