Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 28

6 

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

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

of Sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A) is a permissible domes-
tic application of the Act, even if the defendant’s own con-
duct occurred elsewhere.”  Ibid. 

I agree with the Government’s position.  Sections 32(1)(a)
and 43(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibit specific types of “use[s] 
in commerce”: uses that are “likely to cause confusion, or to 
cause  mistake,  or  to  deceive.”  15  U. S. C.  §§1114(1)(a), 
1125(a)(1)(A).  The statute thus makes clear that prohibit-
ing the use in commerce is “merely the means by which the
statute achieves its end” of protecting consumers from con-
fusion.  WesternGeco LLC, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8).
Stated  differently,  “a  competitor’s  use  does  not  infringe  a 
mark unless it is likely to confuse consumers.”  Patent and 
Trademark  Office  v.  Booking.com  B.V.,  591  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2020) (slip op., at 12); see 4 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and 
Unfair  Competition  §23:1,  p. 23–9  (5th  ed.  2023)  (McCar-
thy) (“[L]ikelihood of confusion is the keystone of trademark 
infringement”).  Because  the  statute’s  focus  is  protection
against consumer confusion, the statute covers foreign in-
fringement  activities  if  there  is  a  likelihood  of  consumer 
confusion in the United States and all other conditions for 
liability are established.  See infra, at 12. 

Treating  consumer  confusion  as  the  focus  of  the  Act  is
consistent  with  Steele,  which  focused  on  the  domestic  “ef-
fects” of the defendant’s foreign conduct.  344 U. S., at 286. 
Steele emphasized that, although the defendant did not af-
fix the mark or sell the products in the United States, “spu-
rious ‘Bulovas’ filtered through the Mexican border into this
country,”  causing  consumer  confusion  here.  Id.,  at  285– 
287.  These domestic effects, the Court reasoned, could “re-
flect adversely on Bulova Watch Company’s trade reputa-
tion” in the United States.  Id., at 286.  In other words, con-
sistent with the statutory text, Steele focused on the impact
of the defendant’s foreign conduct on the consumer market 
in the United States (in accord with the Government’s view 
here), not the location of the original sale of the infringing