Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

14 

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

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

The  Court’s  arguments  about  the  impending  “ interna-
tional discord” that will result from the Government’s ap-
proach are simply overblown.  Ante, at 12 (internal quota-
tion  marks  omitted).   There  is  no  evidence  that  Steele, 
which is consistent with a focus on domestic consumer con-
fusion,  has created  any  international  tension  since  it  was
decided  more  than  70  years  ago.    Moreover,  as  even  peti-
tioners  acknowledge,  purely  foreign  sales  with  no  connec-
tion to the United States are unlikely to confuse consumers 
domestically.  See Brief for Petitioners 44.  Foreign compa-
nies with purely foreign operations also have at their dis-
posal important defenses grounded in due process and in-
ternational  comity  principles,  including  the  ability  to 
dismiss a case in the United States for lack of personal ju-
risdiction or on the ground of forum non conveniens.  See, 
e.g.,  Piper  Aircraft  Co.  v.  Reyno,  454  U. S.  235,  257–261 
(1981).8 

—————— 
through different countries, multinational brands have an online pres-
ence, and trademarks are not protected uniformly around the world, lim-
iting  the  Lanham  Act  to  purely  domestic  activities  leaves  U. S.  trade-
mark owners without adequate protection.  Cf. McBee, 417 F. 3d, at 119 
(noting  that  “global  piracy  of  American  goods  is  a  major  problem  for 
American companies,” and absent some enforcement over foreign activi-
ties, “there is a risk” that “violators will either take advantage of inter-
national coordination problems or hide in countries without efficacious 
. . . trademark laws, thereby avoiding legal authority”).  To be sure, the 
Court today does not address whether a defendant operating abroad who 
sells goods that reach the United States can be held liable under the Lan-
ham  Act  pursuant  to  contributory  liability  principles.    See  Tr.  of  Oral 
Arg. 7–8, 20–21.  Still, today’s decision significantly waters down protec-
tions for U. S. trademark owners.  It is now up to Congress to correct the 
Court’s limited reading of the Act. 

8 The  Court  incorrectly  suggests  that  the  Government’s  position  will 
sweep  in  foreign  defendants  with  only  a  minimal  connection  to  the 
United States.  Ante, at 12.  In this case, for example, the District Court 
concluded that personal jurisdiction was proper based on a forum selec-
tion  clause  in  the  parties’  distribution  agreement,  which  named  Okla-