Federal Circuit Holds Falsely Advertising Product as Patented Can Violate Lanham Act
Highlights
In Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the plaintiff had stated a claim where the defendant admitted it falsely claimed the product at issue was patented and its advertising claimed tangible benefits
The claim of tangible benefits from the patented features distinguished the case from earlier decisions involving claims to authorship or innovation
Companies should be careful about advertising claims that products are patented or otherwise innovative and consider removing such claims after the relevant patents expire
In Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment against Double Diamond Distribution, USA Dawgs Inc. and others (which the court collectively called Dawgs) on their counterclaim that Crocs violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by advertising the material from which its shoes are made as “patented.”
Keep Up to Date in a Changing World
