Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

the statutory provisions.  Like the Court’s analysis at step 
one, this inquiry is contextual; the Court “do[es] not analyze 
the provision at issue in a vacuum.”  WesternGeco LLC v. 
ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., 
at 6).  Rather, the Court looks at the provision “in concert”
with other relevant provisions and considers “how the stat-
ute has actually been applied.”  Ibid.  The aim of determin-
ing the statutory focus is to assess what constitutes a do-
mestic  application  of  the  statute.    An  application  is
domestic when the object of the statute’s focus is found in, 
or  occurs  in,  the  United  States.  See,  e.g.,  Morrison,  561 
U. S.,  at  266–267,  273  (where  the  “focus  of  the  Exchange
Act” is “purchases and sales of securities,” there is no do-
mestic application of the statute when those purchases and 
securities “occurred outside the United States,” regardless 
of “the place where the deception originated”).

The parties offer different interpretations of the focus of
§§32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A).  Petitioners argue that the focus
of the statute is the “use” of the mark “in commerce.”  Brief 
for Petitioners 39.  Under petitioners’ theory, the Lanham
Act does not reach any infringing products sold abroad; in-
stead, the defendant must sell the products directly into the 
United States.  Id., at 44–45.  Respondent, by contrast, ar-
gues that the Act has two distinct focuses: protecting mark
owners from reputational harm and protecting consumers 
from  confusion.  Brief  for  Respondent  45–48.  Under  re-
spondent’s view, reputational harm to the mark owner “is 
not necessarily tied to the locus of [consumer] confusion or 
the locus of the [defendant’s] conduct.”  Id., at 47.  Instead, 
respondent asserts, harm to a mark owner’s reputation “is 
felt where [the mark owner] resides.”  Ibid.  The Govern-
ment,  as  amicus  curiae  supporting  neither  party,  offers  a 
middle ground.  In its view, the focus of the statute is con-
sumer confusion.  See Brief for United States as Amicus Cu-
riae 14 (United States  Brief ).  Accordingly, “[w]here such
effects are likely to occur in the United States, application