假宣传产品为“专利产品”可能会被依据《兰哈姆法案》提起诉讼
来源：广东中策知识产权研究院 发布日期：2024-12-03 阅读：49次
Background
背景
The case began as a patent infringement action by Crocs against Dawgs and others. Dawgs counterclaimed for false advertising under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act. The counterclaim asserted that, by promoting the ‘Croslite’ material of Crocs’ footwear as “patented”, “proprietary” and “exclusive”, Crocs deceived consumers into believing that competing footwear was made of inferior material. Crocs successfully moved for summary judgment that the counterclaim failed as a matter of law.
该案件起初是由Crocs公司对Dawgs及其他公司提起的专利侵权诉讼，而Dawgs则根据《兰哈姆法案》第43(a)(1)(B)条反诉，指控Crocs进行虚假广告宣传。反诉称，Crocs通过将其鞋类产品使用的“Croslite”材料宣传为“专利”“专有”及“独占”，误导消费者相信竞争对手的鞋类产品使用的是劣质材料。对此，Crocs提出简易判决动议，并成功获得法院裁定反诉从法律层面上不成立。
In granting summary judgment to Crocs, the district court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar Corp v Twentieth Century Fox (2003) and the Federal Circuit’s decision in Baden Sports v Molten USA (Fed Cir 2009). Under those precedents, the district court determined that terms such as “patented”, “proprietary” and “exclusive” did not speak to the nature, characteristics or qualities of the advertised products as required to prove false advertising under the Lanham Act. Rather, these terms were “claims of ‘inventorship’” as to who was responsible for the technology and thus “legally barred” under the Dastar and Baden cases.
在批准Crocs的简易判决动议时，地区法院参考了最高法院在Dastar Corp诉二十世纪福克斯公司案（2003年）以及联邦巡回法院在Baden Sports诉Molten USA案（2009年）的裁定。依据这些判例，地区法院认为，“专利”“专有”和“独占”等术语并未描述被宣传产品的性质、特性或品质，而这是《兰哈姆法案》虚假广告条款所要求的必要要素。这些术语反而是关于谁对相关技术负责的“发明权主张”，根据Dastar案和Baden案的法律原则，这类主张“在法律上受到禁止”。
Federal Circuit decision
联邦巡回法院裁决
On appeal, the Federal Circuit applied 10th Circuit law (based on the location of the original lawsuit) and reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. Crocs had admitted that the statement that Croslite was “patented” was false, such that falsity was not an issue on appeal. The only issue was whether Dastar and Baden precluded the false advertising counterclaim as a matter of law.
在上诉中，联邦巡回法院依据第十巡回法院的法律（基于原诉讼所在地）对简易判决进行了完全重新审查（de novo review）。Crocs公司已承认其关于Croslite材料“已获专利”的声明为虚假，因此虚假性在上诉中并非争议焦点。唯一的问题是，Dastar案和Baden案是否从法律上排除了对Crocs提起虚假广告反诉的可能性。
The Federal Circuit determined that those cases were distinguishable and thus did not preclude the false advertising claim against Crocs. Dastar involved a claim of authorship of a video series that was copied from an earlier series in the public domain. Under Dastar, such claims of authorship are not actionable under the Lanham Act without “something more”, because they are not directed to the nature, characteristic or quality of the advertised goods. The Baden decision similarly held that advertising basketballs as having “dual-cushion technology” that was “innovative” was not actionable under the Lanham Act merely because it falsely implied that the advertiser was the innovator. The source of the innovation is not a nature, characteristic or quality within the meaning of Section 43(a)(1)(B).
联邦巡回法院认为，这些案件的情况有所不同，因此并不排除对Crocs的虚假广告指控。Dastar案涉及的是对一个视频系列版权归属的主张，该系列改编自公共领域中的早期作品。根据Dastar案的裁定，除非有“额外要素”，这种版权归属的主张不能依据《兰哈姆法案》提起诉讼，因为它并未针对被宣传商品的性质、特性或品质。同样，在Baden案中，广告声称篮球具有“创新的双缓冲技术”并不构成可诉的虚假广告，即使该表述可能错误地暗示广告商是该技术的发明者。创新来源并非《兰哈姆法案》第43(a)(1)(B)条意义上的性质、特性或品质。
By contrast, as alleged by Dawgs, promoting Croslite as “patented” misled consumers into believing that the material of competing footwear was inferior. The court found that the false statements were “not solely an expression of innovation and, hence, authorship”. Relying on evidence of promotional materials with statements that “Croslite has numerous tangible benefits”, the court held that the false statements that Croslite was patented, proprietary and exclusive were directed to the nature of the product itself and thus actionable as false advertising.
相比之下，Dawgs指控称，宣传Croslite材料“已获专利”误导消费者认为竞争对手鞋类材料较为低劣。法院认为，这些虚假陈述“并非单纯表达创新或因此的发明权”。基于推广材料中“Croslite具有多项实际优势”的相关证据，法院认定关于Croslite材料“已获专利”“专有”及“独占”的虚假陈述是直接针对产品本身性质的，因此可作为虚假广告提起诉讼。
Comment
评论
Those asserting infringement claims must prepare themselves not only for the obvious invalidity counterclaims, but also for somewhat less obvious potential false advertising claims.
提出侵权主张的原告不仅要为明显的无效反诉做好准备，还应防范那些较不明显的潜在虚假广告指控。