“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.”
