Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 34

12 

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

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

leted).  What the Lanham Act requires is a likelihood of con-
fusion  in  the  United  States,  not  some  abstract  and  unde-
fined  “effect.”  The  likelihood-of-confusion  test  comes 
straight  from  the  statute’s  text.  As  petitioners  and  the
Court acknowledge, it is at the very core of the inquiry un-
der §§32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A).  See Brief for Petitioners 47– 
48; ante, at 9.  Assessing likelihood of confusion may require
a nuanced test, but it is the test that Congress chose and 
that courts already apply. 

In  addition,  any  plaintiff  would  need  to  do  more  than 
point to mere likelihood of confusion; as with any cause of 
action, the plaintiff must establish all necessary elements 
for recovery.  For example, although “use in commerce” is 
not  the  statute’s  focus,  the  statute  still  requires  that  the
plaintiff  establish  a  “use  in  commerce.”    §§1114(1)(a), 
1125(a)(1)(A).  As  Steele  shows,  because  “commerce”  in-
cludes all commerce that Congress has the power to regu-
late, §1127, some foreign sales can fall under the statute’s
reach.  See also RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 344 (the term 
“ ‘foreign commerce’ ” does not “mean literally all commerce 
occurring  abroad,”  but  it  includes  “commerce  directly  in-
volving  the  United  States,”  including  “commerce  between 
the United States and a foreign country”).6  Plaintiffs must 
also  generally  show,  for  example,  that  their  “injuries  are 
proximately caused by violations of the statute.”  Lexmark 
Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U. S. 118, 
132 (2014).  The Court is thus mistaken that “abstract con-
sumer confusion is sufficient” to recover under the Lanham 
Act.  Ante, at 14. 

—————— 

6 Here,  there  is  no  dispute  that  the  Lanham  Act  covers  the  products 
that petitioners sold directly into the United States.  See Brief for Peti-
tioners 11, 41, 44–45.  The dispute centers on products that petitioners
sold abroad to foreign buyers.  For a portion of those products, the foreign 
buyer designated the United States as the location where the products 
were intended to be used.  Like the watches in Steele, those products thus
“ended up in the United States.”  Pet. for Cert. 6.