Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

Finally,  the  Court  relies  upon  the  amicus  brief  filed  by
the European Commission in support of its concern about 
the  risk  of  international  “tension”  that  the  Government’s 
position  supposedly  creates.  Ante,  at  14.    The  European
Commission filed its brief in support of neither party, how-
ever, in line with the Solicitor General’s view that a focus 
on consumer confusion provides a more balanced approach
that  respects  international  relations  while  protecting 
against trademark infringement domestically.  No “sover-
eign nation” filed its brief in support of petitioners’ (and the 
Court’s) restricted view of step two of the extraterritoriality
analysis.  Ibid.    And  there  is  no  “tension”  in  any  event. 
What  the  European  Commission  “warns  this  Court 
against,” ibid., is adopting respondent’s sweeping view that 
all foreign uses that confuse consumers abroad fall under 
the scope of the Act.  See Brief for European Commission on
Behalf of the European Union as Amicus Curiae 6 (explain-
ing that “infringement” occurs in the European Union when 
there is “a likelihood of consumer confusion” there). 

* 

* 

* 
The Lanham Act covers petitioners’ activities abroad so 
long as respondent can show that those activities are “likely 
to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive” in the 
United States and can prove all elements necessary to es-
tablish  liability  under  the  Act.  15  U. S. C.  §§1114(1)(a), 
1125(a)(1)(A).  Because the courts below did not apply that 
test, I agree vacatur and remand is required.  The Court’s 
opinion, however, instructs the Court on remand to apply a
test that is not supported by either the Lanham Act or this 

—————— 
homa  as  the  forum  of  choice,  and  because  petitioners  purposefully  di-
rected  their  activities  at  the  United  States.  Hetronic  Int’l,  Inc.  v. 
Hetronic Germany GmbH, 2015 WL 5569035, *1–*3 (WD Okla., Sept. 22, 
2015); Hetronic Int’l, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH, 2015 WL 6835428, 
*2 (WD Okla., Nov. 6, 2015).  The Tenth Circuit affirmed that determi-
nation, Hetronic Int’l, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH, 10 F. 4th 1016, 
1027–1032 (2021), which petitioners do not challenge before this Court.