Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

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

Opinion of the Court 

Abitron originally operated as a licensed distributor for 
Hetronic,  but  it  later  concluded  that  it  held  the  rights  to 
much  of  Hetronic’s  intellectual  property,  including  the
marks on the products at issue in this suit.  After reverse 
engineering  Hetronic’s  products,  Abitron  began  to  sell
Hetronic-branded products that incorporated parts sourced
from third parties.  Abitron mostly sold its products in Eu-
rope,  but  it  also  made  some  direct  sales  into  the  United
States. 

Hetronic  sued  Abitron  in  the  Western  District  of  Okla-
homa for, as relevant here, trademark violations under two 
related  provisions  of  the  Lanham  Act.  First,  it  invoked 
§1114(1)(a), which prohibits the unauthorized “use in com-
merce [of] any reproduction . . . of a registered mark in con-
nection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or ad-
vertising of any goods or services” when “such use is likely 
to  cause  confusion.”  Hetronic  also  invoked  §1125(a)(1), 
which  prohibits  the  “us[e]  in  commerce”  of  a  protected
mark, whether registered or not, that “is likely to cause con-
fusion.”  Hetronic sought damages under these provisions
for Abitron’s infringing acts worldwide. 

Throughout the proceedings below, Abitron argued that
Hetronic sought an impermissible extraterritorial applica-
tion of the Lanham Act.  But the District Court rejected this 
argument,  and  a  jury  later  awarded  Hetronic  approxi-
mately $96 million in damages related to Abitron’s global 
employment  of  Hetronic’s  marks.   This  amount  thus  in-
cluded damages from Abitron’s direct sales to consumers in 
the United States, its foreign sales of products for which the
foreign buyers designated the United States as the ultimate
destination,  and  its  foreign  sales  of  products  that  did  not 
end up in the United States.  The District Court later en-
tered a permanent injunction preventing Abitron from us-
ing the marks anywhere in the world.  On appeal, the Tenth
Circuit narrowed the injunction to cover only certain coun-
tries  but  otherwise  affirmed  the  judgment.  It  concluded