Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

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

Opinion of the Court 

at ___ (slip op., at 6).  As a result, almost any claim involv-
ing  exclusively  foreign  conduct  could  be  repackaged  as  a 
“domestic application.”  And almost any claim under a non-
extraterritorial provision could be defeated by labeling it a
“foreign application,” even if the conduct at issue was exclu-
sively domestic.  This is far from the measure of certainty
that the presumption against extraterritoriality is designed
to provide. 

B 
JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR’s  expansive  understanding  of  the
Lanham Act’s domestic applications threatens to negate the
presumption  against  extraterritoriality.    In  Morrison,  we 
warned that “the presumption against extraterritorial ap-
plication would be a craven watchdog indeed if it retreated
to its kennel whenever some domestic activity is involved in 
the case.”  561 U. S., at 266.  If a claim under the Act in-
volves a domestic application whenever particular “ ‘effects 
are likely to occur in the United States,’ ” post, at 5–6, the 
watchdog is nothing more than a muzzled Chihuahua.  Un-
der such a test, it would not even be necessary that “some” 
domestic activity be involved.  It would be enough for there 
to be merely a likelihood of an effect in this country.  Apply-
ing that standard here would require even less connection
to  the  United  States  than  some  explicitly  extraterritorial
statutes, which must have, at a minimum, actual domestic 
effects to be invoked.  See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal-
ifornia, 509 U. S. 764, 796 (1993) (holding that the extra-
territorial provision at issue “applies to foreign conduct that
was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substan-
tial effect in the United States”).

This  approach  threatens  “ ‘international  discord.’ ”    Ki-
obel, 569 U. S., at 115.  In nearly all countries, including the
United States, trademark law is territorial—i.e., “a trade-
mark is recognized as having a separate existence in each