Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 21–1043.  Argued March 21, 2023—Decided June 29, 2023 

This  case  requires  the  Court  to  decide  the  foreign  reach  of  15  U. S. C. 
§1114(1)(a)  and  §1125(a)(1),  two  provisions  of  the  Lanham  Act  that 
prohibit trademark infringement.  The case concerns a trademark dis-
pute between Hetronic (a U. S. company) and six foreign parties (col-
lectively  Abitron).    Hetronic  manufactures  remote  controls  for  con-
struction equipment.  Abitron, once a licensed distributor for Hetronic, 
claimed ownership of the rights to much of Hetronic’s intellectual prop-
erty and began employing Hetronic’s marks on products it sold.   

Hetronic  sued  Abitron  in  the  Western  District  of  Oklahoma  for 
trademark violations under two related provisions of the Lanham Act, 
both of which prohibit the unauthorized use in commerce of protected
marks  when,  inter  alia,  that  use  is  likely  to  cause  confusion.    See 
§§1114(1)(a),  1125(a)(1).    Hetronic  sought  damages  for  Abitron’s  in-
fringing acts worldwide.  Abitron argued that Hetronic sought an im-
permissible extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.  The Dis-
trict  Court  rejected  Abitron’s  argument,  and  a  jury  later  awarded 
Hetronic  approximately  $96  million  in  damages  related  to  Abitron’s 
global  employment  of  Hetronic’s  marks.  The  District  Court  also  en-
tered  a  permanent  injunction  preventing  Abitron  from  using 
Hetronic’s marks anywhere in the world.  On appeal, the Tenth Circuit 
narrowed  the  injunction,  but  otherwise  affirmed  the  judgment,  con-
cluding that the Lanham Act extended to “all of [Abitron’s] foreign in-
fringing conduct.” 

Held: Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, §1114(1)(a) 
and §1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend
only  to  claims  where  the  infringing  use  in  commerce  is  domestic. 
Pp. 3–15.