1. “Did the Commission err in determining that the Defaulting Respondents did not violate Section 337 [of the Tariff Act] as the sole basis for denying Crocs’s request for a [General Exclusion Order]?”
2. “Did the Commission err in determining that the Active Respondents did not infringe the 3D Marks, notwithstanding the Active Respondents’ sales of nearly identical footwear, based on the Commission’s reliance on a control survey that copied aspects of and was too similar to the overall appearance of the 3D Marks?”
3. “Did the Commission err in concluding that the Active Respondents’ footwear do not dilute the 3D Marks due to a lack of fame?”
1. “[W]e hold that the Commission provided a sufficient basis for its issuance of an [Limited Exclusion Order], and its actions were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of its discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
2-3. “We have considered Crocs’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive . . . we dismiss Crocs’s appeal as to the Commission’s finding of no violation by the Active Respondents.”
4. “[T]he no violation finding against the Active Respondents was final as of the day it issued because it was not subject to presidential review or any other administrative proceedings, and so the 60-day period to file a notice of appeal began to run on September 14, 2023. Thus, the notice of appeal for the Commission’s final decision of no violation by the Active Respondents was due by November 13, 2023, but Crocs did not file its notice of appeal until December 22, 2023. Crocs’s appeal of the no violation finding is thus dismissed as untimely.”
