Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–1043 
_________________ 

ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
HETRONIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 29, 2023] 

JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE, 
JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE BARRETT join, concurring in 
the judgment. 

Sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act pro-
hibit trademark infringement and unfair competition activ-
ities that are “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake,
or to deceive.”  60 Stat. 437, 441, as amended, 15 U. S. C. 
§§1114(1)(a),  1125(a)(1)(A).1    The  issue  in  this  case  is 
whether, and to what extent, these provisions apply to ac-
tivities  that  occur  in  a  foreign  country.    I  agree  with  the 
majority’s  conclusion  that  the  decision  below  must  be  va-
cated. 
I  disagree,  however,  with  the  extraterritoriality
framework  that  the  Court  adopts  today.    In  my  view,
§§32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act extends to ac-
tivities carried out abroad when there is a likelihood of con-
sumer confusion in the United States. 

I 
This  Court  previously  considered  the  extraterritoriality
of the Lanham Act in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U. S. 
280  (1952).  There,  the  Court  applied  the  Lanham  Act  to 
trademark  infringement  and  unfair  competition  activities 
that occurred abroad but confused consumers in the United 
—————— 

1 For  simplicity,  this  opinion  refers  to  this  likelihood  of  “confusion,” 

“mistake,” or “decei[t]” as likelihood of consumer confusion.