"In July 2025, Crocs asked the Supreme Court to decide a seemingly clean legal question: whether the Lanham Act's false advertising provision, § 43(a)(1)(B), covers misrepresentations about a product's intangible attributes, such as its patent status. Two new filings complicate the story somewhat. The Accessories Council, in an amicus brief supporting Crocs, urges the Court to take the case to prevent what it sees as a chilling effect on both patent enforcement and routine commercial speech."
"Dawgs' brief in opposition reframes the case entirely, insisting that this dispute is about false claims tied to tangible product attributes-not abstract questions about intangibles at all. The case stems from a protracted legal battle between Crocs and Double Diamond (maker of "Dawgs" shoes) that began in 2006 with design patent infringement litigation. The current dispute centers on Double Diamond's false advertising counterclaim, alleging that Crocs misled consumers by marketing its "Croslite" foam material as "patented," "proprietary," and "exclusive" when the material was neither patented nor unique. Rather it was essentially the same EVA foam used by many competitors."
Crocs asked the Supreme Court to resolve whether § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act covers misrepresentations about intangible product attributes like patent status. Two new briefs altered the posture: the Accessories Council supported Crocs, warning of a chilling effect on patent enforcement and routine commercial speech, while Dawgs asserted the dispute concerns false claims tied to tangible product attributes. The dispute arises from long-running litigation between Crocs and Double Diamond that began with design patent claims in 2006. Double Diamond alleges Crocs falsely marketed its Croslite foam as patented, proprietary, and exclusive, when it was essentially the same EVA foam used by competitors.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]