Crocs is back in the legal spotlight after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to revive a false advertising lawsuit against Crocs, stemming from their marketing of “Croslite” as “patented, proprietary, and exclusive.” The crux: Crocs admitted those claims were false, and the court concluded that misleading consumers about the nature or quality of Crocs’ signature footwear is actionable under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act .

In October 2024, a three-judge panel reversed summary judgment in favor of Crocs, determining that false statements about Croslite could mislead consumers regarding product quality—even though they involve patent claims

Crocs had previously won at the District Court (Colorado), which held that false patent claims were merely claims of inventorship—stepping outside false advertising law

The Federal Circuit clarified that “false patent” marketing implicates product characteristics and thus falls within the scope of false advertising provisions—not just authorship misrepresentation

In February 2025, the court declined to revisit this panel decision, leaving the case alive for trial on whether Crocs’ marketing misled customers regarding Croslite’s supposed uniqueness

sources