China L. Smith
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.
Career & Education
- Indiana University, B.S., sports marketing and management, 2016
- Indiana University - Bloomington, Maurer School of Law, J.D., 2019
- Illinois
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).
