`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`
`Before the Honorable Bryan F. Moore
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1270
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CASUAL FOOTWEAR AND
`PACKAGING THEREOF
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT CROCS, INC.’S PETITION
`FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DETERMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 
`Issue 1: The ID Errs In Finding That Crocs Waived Its Claims Against Defaulting
`Respondents ........................................................................................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Statement of Facts and Procedural Background ..................................................... 4 
`B. 
`The ID’s Finding of Waiver Ignores the Prior Entry of Default and Clear
`Statutory and Regulatory Mandates ........................................................................ 4 
`The Commission Must Presume Allegations Against Defaulting
`1. 
`Respondents To Be True and Must Enter Remedies In Crocs’ Favor ........ 5 
`Crocs Properly Briefed Its Entitlement To A GEO, Including By
`Referring To The Defaulting Respondents’ Acts ....................................... 7 
`Staff And Respondents Waived The Ability To Seek To Vacate The
`Default ID or Challenge Crocs’ Entitlement To Remedies ........................ 8 
`Issue 2: The ID Errs In Holding That The Crocs 3D Marks Are Invalid For Lack Of
`Secondary Meaning .......................................................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`Statement of Facts and Procedural Background ................................................... 11 
`1. 
`The Presumption of Validity ..................................................................... 11 
`2. 
`Respondents’ Survey Evidence ................................................................. 12 
`3. 
`Crocs’ Pre-Litigation Survey Evidence .................................................... 15 
`4. 
`Other Evidence Of Secondary Meaning ................................................... 16 
`The ID Errs In Holding That The Hollander Survey Establishes An Affirmative
`Lack Of Secondary Meaning ................................................................................ 17 
`High Gross Association Figures Alone Preclude A Finding of No
`1. 
`Secondary Meaning .................................................................................. 17 
`The ID Errs In Accepting Mr. Hollander’s Survey Controls That Too
`Closely Resemble the 3D Marks ............................................................... 21 
`Survey Respondents’ “Verbatim” Responses Confirm The Impropriety
`of the Control ............................................................................................ 25 
`The ID Fails to Discount the Weight of the Hollander Survey For Using
`An Over-Inclusive Survey Universe ......................................................... 27 
`The ID Repeatedly Fails to Apply The Presumption Of Validity ........................ 27 
`The ID Errs In Holding That The Presumption of Validity Does
`1. 
`Not Apply to Respondent Orly ................................................................. 27 
`The ID Fails To Apply The Presumption To Other Respondents ............ 31 
`2. 
`Crocs Independently Established That The 3D Marks Have Secondary
`Meaning ............................................................................................................... 33 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The Pre-Litigation Survey Evidence Confirms High Levels of
`Consumer Association .............................................................................. 33 
`There Is No Legal or Fact Support For The Conclusion That The
`Use of a Filter Question Was Improper .................................................... 34 
`There Is No Legal or Fact Support For The Conclusion That The
`Survey Universe Was Improper ................................................................ 36 
`The ID Misapplies Remaining Converse Factors ..................................... 37 
`4. 
`Issue 3: The ID Errs In Determining That Respondents Did Not Infringe The
`Asserted Trademarks ........................................................................................................ 46 
`A. 
`Statement of Facts and Procedural Background ................................................... 46 
`B. 
`The ID Committed Clear Error In Weighing the DuPont Factors ........................ 49 
`C. 
`The ID Commits Clear Error In Finding No Infringement of The 3D Marks ...... 51 
`DuPont Factors 7, 8, and 12: The ID’s Determination That These Factors
`1. 
`Weigh Against Likelihood of Confusion Is Clearly Erroneous ................ 51 
`DuPont Factor 1: Similarity of the Marks................................................. 71 
`2. 
`DuPont Factor 2: Similarity and Nature of the Goods .............................. 74 
`3. 
`DuPont Factor 4: Conditions of Sale ........................................................ 74 
`4. 
`DuPont Factor 5: Fame ............................................................................. 76 
`5. 
`DuPont Factor 9: Variety of Goods .......................................................... 76 
`6. 
`DuPont Factor 11: Right to Exclude ......................................................... 77 
`7. 
`DuPont Factor 13: Intent to Confuse ........................................................ 77 
`8. 
`The ID Commits Clear Error In Finding No Infringement of the “CROCS”
`Word Mark ............................................................................................................ 79 
`1. 
`DuPont Factors 7-8 and 12: Actual Confusion ......................................... 80 
`2. 
`DuPont Factor 1: Similarity of the Marks ................................................ 82 
`3. 
`DuPont Factors 4, 6 and 13: Conditions of Sale, Similar Marks in
`Use on Similar Goods and Intent to Confuse ............................................ 83 
`DuPont Factor 9: Variety of Goods .......................................................... 83 
`4. 
`The Commission Should Find that the Amoji Redesign Is Not Ripe For
`Adjudication .......................................................................................................... 83 
`Issue 4: The ID Errs In Finding No False Designation of Source .................................... 85 
`Issue 5: The ID Errs In Determining That The 3D Marks Are Not Famous .................... 85 
`Advertising and Publicity of the 3D Marks Need Not Emphasize The
`A. 
`Constituent Design Elements to Evidence Fame .................................................. 86 
`The Amount, Volume, And Geographic Extent Of Sales Of Products
`Bearing And Embodying The 3D Marks Demonstrate Their Fame ..................... 86 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C. 
`
`VII. 
`
`C. 
`
`Actual Recognition of the 3D Marks Is Established By Dr. Pittaoulis’ Fame
`Survey And Other Objective Indicia, Which The ID Ignores .............................. 87 
`Issue 6: The ID Errs In Determining That Respondents Did Not Dilute The Asserted
`Trademarks By Blurring Or Tarnishment ......................................................................... 89 
`A. 
`The ID’s Finding of No Dilution by Blurring is Clearly Erroneous ..................... 90 
`B. 
`The ID’s Finding of No Dilution by Tarnishment is Clearly Erroneous .............. 92 
`VIII.  Contingent Issues .............................................................................................................. 93 
`A. 
`Fair Use ................................................................................................................. 93 
`B. 
`Domestic Industry ................................................................................................. 94 
`1. 
`Technical Prong ........................................................................................ 94 
`2. 
`Economic Prong ........................................................................................ 95 
`Remedy ................................................................................................................. 96 
`1. 
`General Exclusion Order ........................................................................... 96 
`2. 
`Limited Exclusion Order ........................................................................... 96 
`3. 
`Cease and Desist Order ............................................................................. 97 
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 97 
`
`IX. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acad. of Motion Pictures Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 10-3738 ABC (CWx), 2013 WL 12122803 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2013) ...............23
`
`adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.,
`890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................93
`
`AutoZone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.,
`373 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................91
`
`Bath & Body Works Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Summit Ent., LLC,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ....................................................................................91
`
`Big Dog Motorcycles, L.L.C. v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc.,
`402 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (D. Kan. 2005) ................................................................................27
`
`Borghese Trademarks Inc. v. Borghese,
`No. 10 CIV. 5552 JPO AJP, 2013 WL 143807 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013) ........................66
`
`Burberry Ltd. v. Euro Moda, Inc.,
`No. 08 CIV. 5781 (CM), 2009 WL 1675080 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2009) .....................89, 93
`
`Capri Sun GmbH v. Am. Bev. Co.,
`595 F. Supp. 3d 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) ..................................................................................27
`
`Car-Freshner Corp. v. American Covers, LLC,
`980 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2020)...............................................................................................80
`
`Certain Air Mattress Sys., Components Thereof & Methods of Using the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-971, Comm’n Op. (June 20, 2017) ....................................................9, 10
`
`Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, & Prods. Containing the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-929, Comm’n Determination, 2017 WL 11285863 (Apr. 4, 2017) .........5
`
`Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors & Components Thereof & Prod. Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 14, 2010) ..........................................................8
`
`Certain Digit. Multimeters, & Prods. With Multimeter Functionality,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-588, Order No. 22 (Jan. 14, 2008) .........................................................51
`
`Certain Fish-Handling Pliers & Packaging Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1169, Order No. 14, 2020 WL 2570801 (Apr. 10, 2020) ......................96
`
`Certain Foodservice Equip. & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1166, Comm’n Op. Remanding the Investigation (Dec. 16, 2020) .......85
`iv
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Certain Footwear Prods.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-936, Comm’n Op. (Jul. 6, 2016) ............................................................18
`
`Certain Footwear Prods.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-936, Comm’n Op. (Sept. 24, 2020) ............................................... passim
`
`Certain Footwear Prods.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-936, ID (Nov. 17, 2015)................................................................. passim
`
`Certain Footwear Prods.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-936, Remand ID (Oct. 9, 2019) .......................................................46, 74
`
`Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches & Parts Thereof (IV),
`Inv. No. 337-TA-776, Order No. 18 (June 7, 2012) ............................................................5
`
`Certain Mobile Devices with Multifunction Emulators,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1170, Order No. 19, 2020 WL 3819518 (June 9, 2020) ........................84
`
`Certain Motorized Vehicles & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1132, Comm’n Op. (Modification) (Jan. 4, 2021) .................................25
`
`Certain Motorized Vehicles & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1132, Comm’n Op. (June 18, 2020) ..........................................23, 25, 55
`
`Certain Motorized Vehicles & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1132, ID (Nov. 8, 2019) ................................................................. passim
`
`Certain Printing & Imaging Devices & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Comm’n Op., 2011 WL 1303160 (Feb. 17, 2011) ........................96
`
`Certain Printing & Imaging Devices & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Order No. 24 (Apr. 21, 2010) .......................................................96
`
`Certain Rotary Wheel Printers,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-145, ID Designating the Investigation ‘More Complicated,’
`1983 WL 206912, (Sept. 30, 1983)....................................................................................51
`
`Certain Single Handle Faucets,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-167, ID, 0084 WL 951902 (July 24, 1984)............................................46
`
`Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................31
`
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
`668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................77, 86
`
`Combe Inc. v. Dr. August Wolff GmBH & Co. KG Arzneimittel,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 429 (E.D. Va. 2019) ................................................................................66
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Converse, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`909 F.3d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2018).................................................................................. passim
`
`Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr.,
`109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................54, 79
`
`DeVivo v. Ortiz,
`2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10153, 2020 WL 1227592 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2020) .....................77, 78
`
`Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents,
`252 U.S. 538, 545-56 (1920) .............................................................................................74
`
`First Nat’l Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat’l Bank S.D.,
`679 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................66
`
`Gen. Foods Corp. v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`167 U.S.P.Q. 638, 1970 WL9627 (T.T.A.B. 1970) ...........................................................83
`
`Gianni Versace, S.p.A. v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL,
`328 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .............................................................................93
`
`Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 1:04CV507, 2005 WL 1903128 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2005) ..........................................23
`
`Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons,
`365 F. Supp. 707, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).............................................................................66
`
`Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.,
`236 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001).................................................................................. passim
`
`Hancock v. Am. Steel & Wire Co.,
`203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953) ...........................................................................................83
`
`Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., Inc.,
`73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996).................................................................................................93
`
`In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ...................................................................................47, 50
`
`In re Ferrero,
`479 F.2d 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1973) .........................................................................................83
`
`In re I.AM.Symbolic, LLC,
`866 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................50, 72
`
`In re OEP Enters., Inc.,
`2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 309323 (T.T.A.B. 2019) ........................................................................68
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd.,
`25 F. 4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .........................................................................................30
`
`In re Water Gremlin Co.,
`635 F.2d 841, 208 U.S.P.Q. 89 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ...............................................................68
`
`Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc.,
`763 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................54
`
`Int’l Kennel Club of Chi., Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc.,
`846 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1988) ...........................................................................................54
`
`J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`932 F.2d 1420 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1991).....................................................................33, 35, 78
`
`Jacobs v. Int’l Multifoods Corp.,
`668 F.2d 1234 (C.C.P.A. 1982) .........................................................................................83
`
`Jewelers Vigilance Committee, Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp.,
`853 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................................78
`
`Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings,
`857 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................86
`
`Kate Spade LLC v. Saturdays Surf LLC,
`950 F. Supp. 2d 639 (S.D.N.Y 2013) .................................................................................64
`
`Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc.,
`963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992).....................................................................................50, 77
`
`Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo K.K.,
`125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1468 (T.T.A.B. 2017) ..............................................................................68
`
`L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..............................................................................29, 30, 31
`
`Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.,
`686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................28
`
`LHO Chi. River, L.L.C. v. Rosemoor Suites, LLC,
`988 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................53
`
`Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.,
`799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986)...............................................................................................54
`
`Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc.,
`156 F. Supp. 3d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ................................................................................91
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
`935 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D.N.M. 2013) ................................................................................95
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2:05-CV-1468-GEB-JFM, 2007 WL 2782030 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007) ................89
`
`Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp.,
`378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................90, 92
`
`Opryland USA Inc. v. Great Am. Music Show, Inc.,
`970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................................54
`
`Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd.,
`998 F.2d 985 (1993) ...........................................................................................................51
`
`Quality Inns Int’l, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988) ........................................................................................66
`
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co.,
`199 U.S.P.Q. 125, 1978 WL 21226 (T.T.A.B. 1978) ........................................................83
`
`Recot, Inc. v. Becton,
`214 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..........................................................................50, 74
`
`Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.,
`676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................90
`
`Ross Bicycles, Inc. v. Cycles USA, Inc.,
`765 F.2d 1502 (11th Cir. 1985) .........................................................................................85
`
`Selchow & Righter Co. v. Decipher, Inc.,
`598 F. Supp. 1489 (E.D. Va. 1984) ...................................................................................36
`
`SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Sols., Inc.,
`52 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................32, 33, 44, 45
`
`Spangler Candy Co. v. Tootsie Roll Indus., LLC,
`372 F. Supp. 3d 588 (N.D. Ohio 2019) ..............................................................................23
`
`SquirtCo. v. Seven-Up Co.,
`628 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1980) ...........................................................................................35
`
`Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc.,
`588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009)...........................................................................................90, 91
`
`Swagway, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`934 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)......................................................................................5, 51
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Tao Licensing LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd.,
`125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1043 (T.T.A.B. 2017) ..............................................................................31
`
`U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B. V.,
`591 U.S. _, 140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020) ..............................................................................26, 30
`
`U.S. Polo Ass’n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.,
`800 F. Supp. 2d 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ....................................................................23, 24, 64
`
`Varitronics Sys. v. Merlin Equip.,
`682 F. Supp. 1203 (S.D. Fla. 1988) ...................................................................................54
`
`Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp.,
`888 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................32
`
`W. Fla Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Restaurants, Inc.,
`31 F.3d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................................28
`
`Wendt v. Host Int’l, Inc.,
`125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................35
`
`White v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
`108 F.3d 1392, 1997 WL 76957 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................28, 31
`
`Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd.,
`840 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..............................................................................37, 41, 42
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114 ............................................................................................................................29
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1115 ......................................................................................................................27, 95
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125 .................................................................................................................... passim
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 ............................................................................................................................28
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337 .................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Rules & Regulations
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.16 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.17 ...........................................................................................................................4
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.18 ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.33 ...........................................................................................................................6
`ix
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.35 ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.40 ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.43 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(4) .....................................................................................................................68
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Ericksen & Pittaoulis, Control Group in Lanham Act Surveys,
`164 Trademark Rep. 744 (2014) ........................................................................................24
`
`Jacoby, Experimental Design and the Selection of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive
`Advertising Surveys,
`92 Trademark Rep. 890 (2002) ..........................................................................................23
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 7:30 ...................42
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 8:8.50 ................44
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 15:45 .................18
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 23:2 ...................54
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 23:20 .................74
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 23:63 .................51
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 24:43 .................78
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 24:104 ...............77
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 24:116 .........90, 92
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 32:175 ...............25
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 32:178 .........26, 36
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (5th ed. Dec. 2022 update) § 32:187 ...............24
`
`Rappeport, Litigation Surveys—Social “Science” As Evidence,
`92 Trademark Rep. 957 (2002) ....................................................................................24, 36
`
`Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 20 (1995) ...............................................................66
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Man. of Exam. Proc. § 807.08 ..............................68
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Man. of Exam. Proc. § 1202.02 ............................68
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Man. of Exam. Proc. § 1212.05 ............................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Term
`Complainantor Crocs
`Orly
`Hobby Lobb
`Amoji
`
`Respondent Orly Shoe Corporation
`Respondent Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
`
`CX
`
`CDX
`
`CPX
`
`RX
`
`RDX
`
`RPX
`
`IX
`
`°328 Registration
`875 Registration
`3D Marks
`
`Word Mark
`Asserted Trademarks
`
`567 Investigation
`
`PTO
`
`CPHB
`
`CIB
`
`CRB
`
`RPHB
`
`RIB
`
`RRB
`
`SPHB
`
`SIB
`
`SRB
`Staff
`
`ID
`
`Dep.
`
`Staff's Pre-Hearing Brief
`
` WS
`
`Converse Remand Op.
`
`Tr.
`
`|WitnessStatement
`Witness Statement
`Certain Footwear Prods., Inv. No. 337-TA-936, Initial Determination (Nov.
`Converse ID
`
`Converse RID
`
`Converse Comm’n Op.
`
`McCarthy
`
`J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (Sth
`ed. Dec. 2022 update
`
`Xl
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Crocs has been one of the most highly recognized brands in the world since it burst onto
`
`the scene twenty years ago. Crocs achieved and maintained this distinction on the strength of its
`
`core product: the Classic Clog. Practically overnight, this shoe became an icon unto itself due to
`
`its distinctive design, incorporating unconventional yet eye-grabbing elements that made it a viral
`
`sensation and led to sustained fame for the design.
`
`The PTO has agreed. In March 2017, the PTO issued Crocs registrations for 3D Marks
`
`that reflect core elements of the design of the Classic Clog. The PTO recognized the strength of
`
`Crocs’ showing of acquired distinctiveness, even without a consumer survey, consistent with the
`
`substantial evidence of record. Crocs has sold over 720 million pairs of shoes, the majority of them
`
`Classic Clogs sold to American consumers. The ubiquity, celebrity, industry recognition (Shoe of
`
`the Year in 2005 and 2020) and the instantly-recognizable look of the trademarked features of the
`
`Classic Clog have cemented the shoe in the mind of almost everyone in the United States.
`
`Even Respondents’ evidence in this case confirms that Americans know the Crocs marks.
`
`Over 50% of survey respondents knew that the Crocs 3D Marks are from a single source, and the
`
`vast majority of those respondents were able to identify Crocs as that source, entirely unaided.
`
`When Respondents came out with their Crocs copies after Crocs’s design patent expired, 70% of
`
`survey respondents (from Respondent’s own survey!) thought the Respondents’ shoes came from
`
`Crocs. Crocs’ own survey evidence confirmed and bolstered these findings. Even one of
`
`Respondents’ employees, testifying under oath, mistook his own shoe for a Classic Clog.
`
`None of this is shocking—Crocs is well-known. Ask any high school student, none of
`
`whom were even born when Crocs came out. What is shocking is that the Initial Determination
`
`(“ID”) concludes that there is no infringement by these admittedly substantial similar knock-offs,
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`and in fact, purports to strip Crocs of its trademark protection issued by the USPTO for one of the
`
`most iconic and popular shoes ever sold. This is not what the ITC is supposed to be about.
`
`How did the ID reach such an untenable conclusion? The ID does so by disregarding
`
`copious evidence and misapplying the law, and instead follows a series of flawed
`
`recommendations and arguments by Staff and Respondents, primarily centered around Respondent
`
`surveys that fail even the most basic common sense checks, let alone the applicable legal
`
`requirements regularly followed by courts. In a nutshell, Respondents’ experts did what they
`
`needed to do: When faced with results showing that people recognize the Crocs 3D Marks and
`
`believe that your knockoff shoes also come from Crocs, the only way to get out from under such
`
`evidence is to create survey “control” shoes that will also induce consumers to say “Crocs,” thus
`
`inflating the control results. That way, if no one critically examines your work, you can simply
`
`subtract away all of the confusion and recognition that indisputably exists and engineer a
`
`misleading low “net” confusion rate. And, that is what happened. Among other things, Staff and
`
`Respondents asked the ALJ to disregard the undisputedly high levels of recognition and confusion
`
`based only on artificial controls created by Respondents’ experts to get the results they needed.
`
`These “controls” are not deserving of the title, as each copied slavishly from the 3D Marks, making
`
`only minor alterations to some individual “elements” but incorporating the overall design so
`
`extensively that many survey participants were convinced they were viewing a Crocs shoe and
`
`said so in their surveys!
`
`Controls are typically in the single or low-double digits, yet Respondents inflated this into
`
`unprecedented levels of 50% to 75% and more, something no case recognizes as appropriate. This
`
`is not data, it is cheating, the intent and effect of which was to zero-out overwhelming recognition
`
`and confusion levels, and contrive “net” association and confusion at near-zero or even negative
`
`levels. If an “expert” says the world’s most recognizable shoe design is known by a negative
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`number of consumers, and precisely nobody is confused by a copycat shoe whose own COO
`
`mistook it fo