China L. Smith

Associate | She/Her/Hers

Overview

China Smithis an associate in the Technology & Brand Protection group in Crowell & Moring’s Chicago office. Her practice focuses on trademark counseling, prosecution, and portfolio management, as well as domain name disputes.

China has developed extensive experience in trademark and trade dress clearance and prosecution. Working with clients and counsel around the world, she develops and maintains trademark portfolios to protect her clients' intellectual property rights. She is also well versed in assisting her clients with Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaints.

While in law school, China contributed to the IP Theory Journal. Additionally, she was active in many legal organizations and activities, including the Black Law Students Association and the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity. She participated in the Sherman Minton Moot Court Competition and was selected as a finalist in the Access to Justice Project in Civil Procedure, where she also served as a Civil Justice Design Fellow.

Prior to Crowell & Moring, China was an associate at a globally recognized firm, where she focused on domestic and international trademark clearance searches and prosecuted trademark applications worldwide. Her work also focused on packaging and trade dress review.

Career & Education

|
    • Indiana University, B.S., sports marketing and management, 2016
    • Indiana University - Bloomington, Maurer School of Law, J.D., 2019
    • Indiana University, B.S., sports marketing and management, 2016
    • Indiana University - Bloomington, Maurer School of Law, J.D., 2019
    • Illinois
    • Illinois
  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Member, Chicago Women in IP (ChiWIP)

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Member, Chicago Women in IP (ChiWIP)

China's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.24

Can False Claims of Patent Protection Land You in the False Advertising Dawg(s) House?

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)....

China's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.24

Can False Claims of Patent Protection Land You in the False Advertising Dawg(s) House?

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)....