Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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 prohibit trademark infringement. The case concerns a trademark dis- pute between Hetronic (a U. S. company) and six foreign parties (col- lectively Abitron). Hetronic manufactures remote controls for con- struction equipment. Abitron, once a licensed distributor for Hetronic, claimed ownership of the rights to much of Hetronic’s intellectual prop- erty and began employing Hetronic’s marks on products it sold. Hetronic sued Abitron in the Western District of Oklahoma for trademark 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), 1125(a)(1). Hetronic sought damages for Abitron’s in- fringing acts worldwide. Abitron argued that Hetronic sought an im- permissible extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. The Dis- trict Court rejected Abitron’s argument, and a jury later awarded Hetronic approximately $96 million in damages related to Abitron’s global employment of Hetronic’s marks. The District Court also en- tered a permanent injunction preventing Abitron from using Hetronic’s marks anywhere in the world. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit narrowed the injunction, but otherwise affirmed the judgment, con- cluding that the Lanham Act extended to “all of [Abitron’s] foreign in- fringing 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. 3–15. 2 ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH v. HETRONIC INT’L, INC.

Syllabus

(a) The presumption against extraterritoriality reflects the longstanding principle “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdic- tion 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 reflects the “commonsense notion that Congress gener- ally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325, 335–336. 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 affirmatively and unmistakably in- structed that” the provision at issue should “apply to foreign conduct.” Id., at 335. If Congress has provided such an instruction, then the provision is extraterritorial. If not, then the provision is not extrater- ritorial and step two applies. That step resolves whether a suit seeks a (permissible) domestic or (impermissible) foreign application of the provision. That determination requires courts to identify the “focus” of congressional concern underlying the provisi