Remove companies crocs-inc
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

The key issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Crocs on Double Diamond Distribution and U.S.A. This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions.

article thumbnail

calling an accepted Rule 68 offer a judgment of infringement could be defamatory

43(B)log

Crocs, Inc., In 2006, Crocs sued now-plaintiff Double Diamond and Dawgs, its affiliate. but then-defendants sent offers of judgment to Crocs. Crocs accepted. Crocs then issued a press release, “Crocs secures long sought-after judgment of infringement against USA Dawgs and Double Diamond Distribution.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Crocs v Dawgs: The Battle of the Clogs

IPilogue

The intellectual property rights victory in Canada for the footwear company Crocs is a timely reminder to keep fleece clogs in mind for your winter wardrobe. Famous for its easily-recognizable design of breathable and water-friendly clogs, Crocs was founded in 2002 in the US by three college friends who enjoyed sailing.

article thumbnail

Anti-SLAPP Can't Save Crocs From Libel Suit, Shoe Co. Says

IP Law 360

A Colorado law allowing defendants to defeat lawsuits that chill free speech does not protect footwear maker Crocs Inc. from allegations that it issued a defamatory press release, a Canadian shoe company argued in a brief, which also claimed Crocs has continued to misrepresent a patent settlement between the companies.

article thumbnail

New Crocs Lawsuit Is A Media Stunt, Rival's CEO Says

IP Law 360

The CEO of shoe company Joybees LLC is asking a Colorado federal judge to toss a lawsuit filed last month by its higher-profile rival Crocs Inc., arguing that Crocs filed the new lawsuit in order to get around a protective order in another lawsuit just to generate negative media coverage.

40
article thumbnail

falsely advertising "proprietary" and "exclusive" material isn't actionable under Dastar

43(B)log

Crocs, Inc. Effervescent, Inc., 14, 2021) Dawgs alleged that Crocs falsely marketed its shoes in violation of the Lanham Act by advertising Croslite, the foam material that Crocs shoes are made from, as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” 2021 WL 4170997, No. 06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT, No. 16-cv-02004-PAB-KMT (D.

article thumbnail

Crocs Rival Can't Force More Details On Infringement Claims

IP Law 360

A Colorado federal judge has turned down a shoe company's request to force Crocs Inc. to be more specific about its patent infringement allegations, after Crocs argued that case law doesn't require it to do anything more than provide pictures of its foam clog and of the allegedly infringing shoes.