Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

13 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

The Court also incorrectly concludes that a test that fo-
cuses  on  domestic  consumer  confusion  conflicts  with  the 
territoriality principle of trademark law.  See ante, at 12– 
14.  That principle recognizes that a trademark has sepa-
rate legal existence in each country where the mark “is reg-
istered or legally recognized.”  5 McCarthy §29:1, at 29–5; 
see Ingenohl v. Olsen & Co., 273 U. S. 541, 544 (1927) (not-
ing that a trademark secured in one country “depend[s] for 
its  protection”  there  and  “confer[s]  no  rights”  elsewhere). 
Thus,  to  obtain  the  benefits  that  flow  from  trademark 
rights,  such  as  the  “right  to  a  non-confused  public,”  the 
plaintiff  must  secure  those  rights  in  the  country  where  it
wants protection.  1 McCarthy §2:10, at 2–24. 

A  focus  on  consumer  confusion  in  the  United  States  is 
consistent  with  that  international  system.  That  focus 
properly cabins the Act’s reach to foreign conduct that re-
sults in infringing products causing consumer confusion do-
mestically  while  “leaving  to  foreign  jurisdictions  the  au-
thority  to  remedy  confusion  within  their  territories.” 
United States Brief 25–26; see Brief for European Commis-
sion on Behalf of the European Union as Amicus Curiae 6 
(“The test for infringement in the European Union, includ-
ing in Germany, like the United States, assesses whether
there  is  a  likelihood  of  consumer  confusion”).  In  other 
words, applying the Lanham Act to domestic consumer con-
fusion  promotes  the  benefits  of  U. S.  trademark  rights  in 
the territory of the United States.

The Court’s approach, by contrast, would absolve from li-
ability  those  defendants  who  sell  infringing  products 
abroad that reach the United States and confuse consumers 
here.  That  resulting  consumer  confusion  in  the  United 
States, however, falls squarely within the scope of the in-
terests that the Lanham Act seeks to protect.7 

—————— 

7 In  today’s  increasingly  global  marketplace,  where  goods  travel