Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

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

Opinion of the Court 

as amicus curiae argues that the provisions focus on only 
likely consumer confusion.

The parties all seek support for their positions in Steele 
v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U. S. 280 (1952), but that decision 
is of little assistance here.  There, we considered a suit al-
leging  that  the  defendant,  through  activity  in  both  the 
United States and Mexico, had violated the Lanham Act by
producing and selling watches stamped with a trademark
that was protected in the United States.  Although we al-
lowed the claim to proceed, our analysis understandably did 
not follow the two-step framework that  we would develop 
decades later.  Our decision was instead narrow and fact-
bound.  It rested on the judgment that “the facts in the rec-
ord . . . when viewed as a whole” were sufficient to rebut the 
presumption  against  extraterritoriality.    Id.,  at  285.  In 
reaching  this  conclusion,  we  repeatedly  emphasized  both 
that  the  defendant  committed  “essential  steps”  in  the 
course  of  his  infringing  conduct  in  the  United  States  and 
that his conduct was likely to and did cause consumer con-
fusion in the United States.4  Id., at 286–287; accord, e.g., 
id., at 286 (“His operations and their effects were not con-
fined within the territorial limits of a foreign nation”); id., 
at  288  (“[P]etitioner  by  his  ‘own  deliberate  acts,  here  and
elsewhere,  brought  about  forbidden  results  within  the 
United States’ ” (alteration omitted)).  Because Steele impli-
cated  both  domestic  conduct  and  a  likelihood  of  domestic 
confusion, it does not tell us which one determines the do-
mestic applications of §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1).

With Steele put aside, then, we think the parties’ partic-
ular debate over the “focus” of §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) 
in the abstract does not exhaust the relevant inquiry.  The 

—————— 

4 For example, we noted that the trademark owner’s “Texas sales rep-
resentative received numerous complaints from [American] retail jewel-
ers  . . .  whose  customers  brought  in  for  repair  defective”  branded 
watches.  Steele,  344  U. S., at  285;  accord, Bulova  Watch  Co.  v.  Steele, 
194 F. 2d 567, 571 (CA5 1952).