“Whether the district court—which found that ‘Crocs admits that its advertisements have “linked” such terms as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” to features, characteristics, and qualities of the product material, and that Crocs’ goal in its Croslite messaging was to imply that its products have “superior characteristics, qualities, and features”‘—erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Crocs on Dawgs’ false advertising counterclaims under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act.”
“We hold that a cause of action arises from Section 43(a)(1)(B) where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product. We reverse and remand.”
