Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

statutes.  Brief for Respondent 23.

Neither  reason  is  sufficient.    When  applying  the  pre-
sumption, “ ‘we have repeatedly held that even statutes . . . 
that expressly refer to “foreign commerce” ’ ” when defining 
“commerce” are not extraterritorial.  Morrison, 561 U. S., at 
262–263; see also RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 344.  This con-
clusion dooms Hetronic’s argument.  If an express statutory 
reference to “foreign commerce” is not enough to rebut the
presumption, the same must be true of a definition of “com-
merce” that refers to Congress’s authority to regulate for-
eign commerce.  That result does not change simply because 
the  provision  refers  to “all”  commerce  Congress  can  regu-
late.  See Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 118 (“[I]t is well established 
that generic terms like ‘any’ or ‘every’ do not rebut the pre-
sumption  against  extraterritoriality”).    And  the  mere  fact 
that the Lanham Act contains a substantively similar defi-
nition that  departs from the so-called “boilerplate” defini-
tions used in other statutes cannot justify a different con-
clusion either. 

C 
Because §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) are not extraterrito-
rial, we must consider when claims involve “domestic” ap-
plications  of  these  provisions.  As  discussed  above,  the 
proper test requires determining the provision’s focus and 
then ascertaining whether Hetronic can “establish that ‘the
conduct  relevant  to  [that]  focus  occurred  in  the  United 
States.’ ”  Nestlé, 593 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 3–4). 

Much of the parties’ dispute in this case misses this crit-
ical point and centers on the “focus” of the relevant provi-
sions without regard to the “conduct relevant to that focus.” 
WesternGeco, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  Abitron con-
tends that §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) focus on preventing
infringing  use  of  trademarks,  while  Hetronic  argues  that
they focus both on protecting the goodwill of mark owners 
and on preventing consumer confusion.  The United States