Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

sovereign territory in which it is registered or legally recog-
nized as a mark.”  5 McCarthy §29:1, at 29–4 to 29–5.  Thus, 
each country is empowered to grant trademark rights and
police infringement within its borders.  See, e.g., ibid.; In-
genohl v. Olsen & Co., 273 U. S. 541, 544 (1927); A. Bourjois 
& Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689, 692 (1923). 

This  principle  has  long  been enshrined  in international 
law.  Under the Paris Convention for the Protection of In-
dustrial Property, July 14, 1967, 21 U. S. T. 1583, T. I. A. S.
No. 6923, a “mark duly registered in a country of the Union 
shall  be  regarded  as  independent  of  marks  registered  in
other countries of the Union,” and the seizure of infringing
goods  is  authorized  “on  importation”  to  a  country  “where
such  mark  or  trade  name  is  entitled  to  legal  protection.”
Arts. 6(3), 9(1), id., at 1639, 1647.  The Convention likewise 
provides  mechanisms  for  trademark  holders  to  secure 
trademark protection in other countries under the domestic 
law  of  those  countries.  Arts.  2(1),  4(1)–(2),  id.,  at  1631– 
1632; see also 5 McCarthy §29:1, at 29–6 to 29–7; Protocol
Relating  to  Madrid  Agreement  Concerning  International 
Registration  of  Marks,  June  27,  1989,  T. I. A. S.  No.  03– 
112, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106–41 (entered into force Dec. 1,
1995)  (providing  mechanisms  for  the  extension  of  trade-
mark  protection  to  multiple  jurisdictions  under  domestic
law).  The  Lanham  Act,  which  is  designed  to  implement 
“treaties  and  conventions  respecting  trademarks,”  §1127, 
incorporates this territorial premise, mandating that regis-
tration of a foreign trademark in the United States “shall 
be independent of the registration in the country of origin”
and that the rights of that mark in the United States are 
governed by domestic law, §1126(f ). 

Because  of  the  territorial  nature  of  trademarks,  the 
“probability  of  incompatibility  with  the  applicable  laws  of 
other counties is so obvious that if Congress intended such
foreign application ‘it would have addressed the subject of 
conflicts with foreign laws and procedures.’ ”  Morrison, 561