Biography

Ali is a corporate associate in Sullivan’s Boston office. She earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law. There, she was an Institute for International Law and Justice Joyce Lowinson Scholar, as well as an articles editor for the Journal of International Law, and a member of the International Law Society and Law Women. In addition, she served as a research consultant for a boutique cybersecurity firm.

Prior to law school, Ali worked for Teach for China, and she was a summer legal fellow for Just Security, where she published three articles on various submissions regarding domestic terrorism and cybersecurity. Ali began at Sullivan as a summer associate in 2022.

Education

New York University School of Law (J.D.)
Cornell University (M.A.)
University of St. Andrews (M.Litt.)
Cornell University (B.A.)

Bar & Court Admissions

New York
Massachusetts

Professional Qualifications

Boston Bar Association

Representative Matters

Represented buyer in its acquisition of a luxury villa rental and property management company in the Turks and Caicos Islands

Languages

Mandarin

Viewpoints

All Viewpoints

U.S. Trademark Fees to Increase Effective January 18, 2025

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has announced increases and adjustments of certain trademark official fees, effective January 18, 2025. These changes follow a year-long comprehensive review process and have been introduced to improve efficiency, encourage accuracy, and ensure the USPTO has the necessary resources to operate. The USPTO’s final rule implementing these changes is available here. The changes include adjustments to certain trademark application fees, intent-to-use fees, post-registration maintenance fees, and petition and letter of protest fees. Most notably, the introduction of application surcharge fees represents a potentially significant cost increase. The risk of compounding surcharge fees should strongly incentivize applicants to strictly adhere to the Trademark ID Manual and exercise careful consideration in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of their applications. In lieu of the processing fee for failing to meet the requirements of a Trademark Electronic Application System (“TEAS”) Plus application, which will be discontinued, the USPTO will impose individual surcharges for applications under Sections 1 and 44 that either fail to meet certain requirements or require more extensive review. These surcharges will apply to applications that (1) omit required information for a base application; (2) use the free-form text box for the description of goods and services instead of selecting from the provided list; and (3) exceed 1,000 characters when electing to use the free-form text box for the description of goods or services. Note that these surcharges do not apply to applications made under Section 66(a) (Madrid Protocol). In addition, amended identifications submitted in response to an office action will be exempt from the excess character fee. At present, trademark applicants seeking to file electronically can select between two filing options, TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard. The new fee structure eliminates these options in favor of implementing a single base application (and standard fee) for electronic filings, with requirements similar to the current TEAS Plus application. The new rules also implement a number of additional prosecution and maintenance fee adjustments, set forth below: If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact one of the Sullivan lawyers listed above.

Federal Circuit Holding in Crocs v. Effervescent Puts the Shoe on the Other Foot

On October 3, 2024, in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion ruling that a brand’s false claim of patent ownership in a product advertisement may give rise to a deceptive advertising claim under the Lanham Act. This precedent could have significant implications for advertisers, as promotional materials touting patents may now face heightened scrutiny and could lead to potential legal repercussions. Background and Procedural History The dispute harkens back to 2006 when Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”) sued Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd., U.S.A. Dawgs Inc., Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Dawgs”), and several other shoe distributors for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In 2016, Dawgs counterclaimed, alleging that Crocs violated the Lanham Act’s prohibition against false or misleading descriptions of goods or services that (1) obfuscate or cause confusion as to the origin of goods or services or (2) mispresent “the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of goods, services, or commercial activities. Dawgs alleged that Crocs misleadingly marketed the foam material of its shoes, branded “Croslite,” by advertising it as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive,” despite the fact that Croslite had never been patented. Dawgs claimed that this misrepresentation gave consumers the impression that Crocs’ shoes were made from a material that was distinct from other footwear brands’ and, in doing so, implied that competitors’ products were “made of inferior material.” The primary issue at summary judgement before the District Court was whether Crocs’ representations that Croslite was “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” merely reflected the inventorship of the material, which would be insufficient to give rise to a Lanham Act claim, or if this language influenced consumer perception of the nature, characteristics, qualities, or origin of the product, which would support a false advertising claim. The District Court held that Crocs was entitled to summary judgement, noting that, while Dawgs alleged that Crocs falsely claimed to invent the Croslite material, which is used widely by other footwear companies around the world, there was no disagreement that Crocs actually produced Croslite and the shoes it offered for sale. Further, even assuming Crocs misrepresented that it was the exclusive source of the Croslite material, such deception was not a misrepresentation of the nature, characteristics, or qualities of Crocs-brand shoes. According to the Court, Dawgs had limited its argument by suggesting that it was Crocs’ claim of invention that implied Dawgs’ brand was inferior, rather than any comparison to specific attributes. Moreover, any claims of superiority were mere puffery. As such, the District Court held that Dawgs failed to assert an actionable Lanham Act claim. Dawgs appealed to the CAFC. Federal Circuit Decision The CAFC reversed the District Court’s decision, ruling that Crocs’ advertising was in fact directed at the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its footwear and that, as a result, Dawgs had a basis to assert a Lanham Act claim. The CAFC ruled that, when a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature, “and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product,” a cause of action arises under the Lanham Act. The CAFC disagreed with the District Court’s conclusion that “[f]alsely claiming to have ‘patented’ something is akin to claiming to have ‘invented’ it.” Key to the CAFC’s analysis was evidence demonstrating that Crocs’ false patent claim was intertwined with promotional materials touting Croslite’s tangible benefits. This advertising, the CAFC concluded, deceptively suggested that Croslite possessed unique attributes that made Crocs’ footwear superior to other brands’. By linking these misleading advertisements directly to the false claim of having patented Croslite, consumers may have been misled not only about the existence of a patent but also about the actual characteristics or qualities of Croslite and Crocs’ shoes. Comments The CAFC’s decision is a stark reminder of the importance of pre-publication clearance and review for advertisers. Companies should ensure close cooperation between their marketing and legal teams to evaluate ad copy for compliance with applicable law. As this ruling makes clear, an activity that may be permissible under one area of law may be impermissible under another. For example, marking a product with an expired patent does not constitute false marking under patent law; however, following Crocs v. Effervescent, continuing to advertise that same product as patented, in conjunction with other statements that speak to the benefits or characteristics of the product, could give rise to a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. Therefore, brands should implement a careful review process to ensure that product advertising does not run afoul of false advertising prohibitions, including carefully reviewing for accuracy materials that reference intellectual property rights and scrutinizing statements that may amount to puffery to ensure they do not cross the line into fallacy. *** The case is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 22-2160 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The opinion is available here. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact one of the Sullivan lawyers listed above.

News

All News

Sullivan & Worcester Welcomes 2023 First-Year Associates

Sullivan has welcomed its 2023 First-Year Associates to the firm. The associates join Sullivan after having completed the firm's summer associate program, as well as various clerkships and internships. The lawyers will be located in our Boston office. Erika Dennery Erika received her J.D. from Northeastern University, where she was a member of the Black Law Students Association. While at Northeastern, Erika competed in the 46th Annual Robert F. Wagner National Labor and Employment Law Moot Court Competition, where she wrote a brief and argued on behalf of an employee for a Title VII hostile work environment claim. Erika's experience includes working as an intern at the United States Department of Homeland Security and as a legal intern at Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, where she advocated for the healthcare and constitutional rights of indigent clients. Most recently, Erika worked as a law clerk at MG+M The Law Firm, a national litigation firm, where she worked on cases involving general commercial matters, construction and real estate. Shannon Moore Shannon is a first-year associate in Sullivan’s Boston office. She earned her J.D. from the University of Notre Dame, where she was the Executive Articles Editor for the Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy and the brief writer for the Moot Court Board’s Intellectual Property Team. She was also member of the St. Thomas More Society, the Federalist Society and the First-Generation Professional Students Organization. While in law school, Shannon worked as an Academic Strategy Tutor for members of the Notre Dame Football Team. Shannon began at Sullivan as a summer associate in 2022. Prior to that, she was a District Court judicial intern for the Honorable Judge Trevor N. McFadden in Washington, DC. Joshua Stein Josh earned his J.D. from the Boston University School of Law, where he was a staff member on the Review of Banking and Financial Law, treasurer of the Jewish Law Students Association, a member of the Business Law Society and a participant in the ABA Negotiation Competition. Additionally, Josh served as a research assistant for Professor Marni Caputo. Previously, Josh was a legal intern for the Massachusetts Securities Division. Prior to law school, Josh worked for Thrivent Financial as a financial advisor and analyst. Josh is also an active volunteer with the Orphaned Starfish Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization focused on developing vocational centers for orphans, victims of abuse and at-risk youth. Gabrielle Strasser Gabrielle earned her J.D. from the Boston University School of Law, where she was on the International Law Journal. While at BU Law, Gabrielle was the president of the Communications, Entertainment, and Sports Law Association, as well as a member of the Women’s Law Association and Intellectual Property Law Society. Prior to attending law school, Gabrielle worked as a 7th grade science teacher in the Chelsea Public School District in Massachusetts. Additionally, she piloted a climate change resilience after-school program in the school district and did curriculum development with the New England Aquarium. She was also a Corps Member for Teach for America, and most recently, a legal assistant at the Boston University Civil Litigation and Justice Program, where she managed a 10-person caseload. Alison Strongwater Ali earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law. There, she was an Institute for International Law and Justice Joyce Lowinson Scholar, as well as an articles editor for the Journal of International Law, and a member of the International Law Society and Law Women. In addition, she served as a research consultant for a boutique cybersecurity firm. Prior to law school, Ali worked for Teach for China, and she was a summer legal fellow for Just Security, where she published three articles on various submissions regarding domestic terrorism and cybersecurity.

Alison G. Strongwater

Alison G. Strongwater

Biography

Alison G. Strongwater

U.S. Trademark Fees to Increase Effective January 18, 2025

Federal Circuit Holding in Crocs v. Effervescent Puts the Shoe on the Other Foot

Alison G. Strongwater

Sullivan & Worcester Welcomes 2023 First-Year Associates

Featured

Stay Connected

Careers