Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

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

Opinion of the Court 

Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337.3  They do not.

It is a “rare statute that clearly evidences extraterritorial
effect despite lacking an express statement of extraterrito-
riality.”  Id.,  at  340.  Our  decision  in  RJR  Nabisco  illus-
trates  the  clarity  required  at  step  one  of  our  framework. 
There, we held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
Organizations Act could have extraterritorial application in 
some circumstances because many of its predicate offenses 
“plainly  apply  to  at  least  some  foreign  conduct”  and  “[a]t 
least  one  predicate  . . .  applies  only  to  conduct  occurring 
outside the United States.”  Id., at 338. 

Here,  neither  provision  at  issue  provides  an  express
statement of extraterritorial application or any other clear 
indication that it is one of the “rare” provisions that none-
theless  applies  abroad.    Both  simply  prohibit  the  use  “in 
commerce,” under congressionally prescribed conditions, of 
protected trademarks when that use “is likely to cause con-
fusion.”  §§1114(1)(a), 1125(a)(1).

Hetronic acknowledges that neither provision on its own 
signals  extraterritorial  application,  but  it  argues  that  the
requisite indication can be found in the Lanham Act’s defi-
nition of “commerce,” which applies to both provisions.  Un-
der that definition, “ ‘commerce’ means all commerce which 
may lawfully be regulated by Congress.”  §1127.  Hetronic 
offers two reasons why this definition is sufficient to rebut
the presumption against extraterritoriality.  First, it argues 
that  the  language  naturally  leads  to  this  result  because 
Congress  can  lawfully  regulate  foreign  conduct  under  the 
Foreign Commerce Clause.  Second, it contends that extra-
territoriality is confirmed by the fact that this definition is 
unique in the U. S. Code and thus differs from what it de-
scribes as “boilerplate” definitions of “ ‘commerce’ ” in other 
—————— 

3 Our cases sometimes refer to whether the “statute” applies extrater-
ritorially, but the two-step analysis applies at the level of the particular
provision implicated.  See, e.g., RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 346; Morrison 
v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. 247, 264–265 (2010).