Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 412–446

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT June 29, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 412 OCTOBER TERM, 2022

Syllabus

ABITRON AUSTRIA GmbH et al. v. HETRONIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 21–1043. Argued March 21, 2023—Decided June 29, 2023 This case requires the Court to decide the foreign reach of 15 U. S. C. § 1114(1)(a) and § 1125(a)(1), two provisions of the Lanham Act that pro- hibit trademark infringement. The case concerns a trademark dispute between Hetronic (a U. S. company) and six foreign parties (collectively Abitron). Hetronic manufactures remote controls for construction equipment. Abitron, once a licensed distributor for Hetronic, claimed ownership of the rights to much of Hetronic's intellectual property and began employing Hetronic's marks on products it sold. Hetronic sued Abitron in the Western District of Oklahoma for trade- mark violations under two related provisions of the Lanham Act, both of which prohibit the unauthorized use in commerce of protected marks when, inter alia, that use is likely to cause confusion. See §§ 1114(1)(a), Page Proof Pending Publication 1125(a)(1). Hetronic sought damages for Abitron's infringing acts worldwide. Abitron argued that Hetronic sought an impermissible ex- traterritorial application of the Lanham Act. The District Court re- jected Abitron's argument, and a jury later awarded Hetronic approxi- mately $96 million in damages related to Abitron's global employment of Hetronic's marks. The District Court also entered a permanent in- junction preventing Abitron from using Hetronic's marks anywhere in the world. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit narrowed the injunction, but otherwise affrmed the judgment, concluding that the Lanham Act ex- tended to “all of [Abitron's] foreign infringing conduct.” Held: Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, § 1114(1)(a) and § 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. Pp. 417–428. (a) The presumption against extraterritoriality refects the longstand- ing principle “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent ap- pears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. 247, 255. The presumption “serves to avoid the international discord that can result when U. S. law is applied to conduct in foreign countries” and refects the “commonsense notion that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325, 335–336. Cite as: 600 U. S. 412 (2023) 413

Syllabus

Applying the presumption involves a two-step framework, which asks at step one whether the statute is extraterritorial. This step turns on whether “Congress has affrmatively and unmistakably instructed that” the provision at issue should “apply to foreign conduct.” Id., at 335. If Congress has provided such an instruction, then the provision is ex- traterritorial. If not, then the provision is not extraterritorial and step two applies. That step resolves whether a suit seeks a (permissible) domestic