Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 17

14 

ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH v. HETRONIC INT’L, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S., at 269.  The use of a mark—even confined to one coun-
try—will often have effects that radiate to any number of 
countries.  And when determining exactly what form of ab-
stract consumer confusion is sufficient in a given case, the 
Judiciary  would  be  thrust  into  the  unappetizing  task  of 
“navigating foreign policy disputes belong[ing] to the polit-
ical  branches.”  Jesner  v.  Arab  Bank,  PLC,  584  U. S.  ___, 
___ (2018) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring 
in judgment) (slip op., at 1).  If enough countries took this 
approach, the trademark system would collapse. 

This tension has not been lost on other sovereign nations. 
The  European  Commission  gravely  warns  this  Court 
against applying the Lanham Act “to acts of infringement 
occurring  . . .  in  the  European  Union”  and  outside  of  the
United States.  Brief for European Commission on Behalf
of  the  European  Union  as  Amicus  Curiae  4  (emphasis
added).  To “police allegations of infringement occurring in 
Germany,”  it  continues,  would  be  an  “unseemly”  act  of
“meddling in extraterritorial  affairs,” given  “international 
treaty obligations that equally bind the United States.”  Id., 
at 28.  As the Commission and other foreign  amici recog-
nize, the “system only works if all participating states re-
spect their obligations, including the limits on their power.” 
Id., at 29; see also, e.g., Brief for German Law Professors as 
Amici Curiae 12; Brief for Guido Westkamp as Amicus Cu-
riae 2–3.  It thus bears repeating our longstanding admon-
ition that “United States law governs domestically but does 
not rule the world.”  Microsoft Corp., 550 U. S., at 454. 

IV 

In sum, we hold that §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) are not 
extraterritorial and that the infringing “use in commerce”
of a trademark provides the dividing line between foreign
and  domestic  applications  of  these  provisions.    Under  the 
Act, the “term ‘use in commerce’ means the bona fide use of 
a  mark  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,”  where  the  mark