Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to petitioners' foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioners—all foreign nationals—were subjected to a $90 million damages award under the Lanham Act, 15 US.C. $1051 et seq., for allegedly infringing respondent’s USS. trademarks. While trademark rights are distinctly territorial, the accused sales occurred almost entirely abroad. Of approximately $90 million in sales, 97% were purely foreign: They were sales in foreign countries, by foreign sellers, to foreign customers, for use in foreign countries, that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers. The Tenth Circuit nonetheless held that the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially to all of petitioners’ foreign sales. Recognizing that the circuits have splintered in this area, the Tenth Circuit adopted an expansive view that other courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have concededly rejected. Under the Tenth Circuit’s view, the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially whenever foreign defendants’ foreign conduct allegedly diverts foreign sales from a U.S. plaintiff. Such an effect, the court held, sufficiently affects U.S. commerce because it prevents foreign revenue from flowing into the U.S. economy. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to petitioners’ foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers. (i)
Docket Entries
2023-06-29
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kagan and Barrett, JJ., joined.
2023-03-21
Argued. For petitioners: Lucas M. Walker, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Matthew S. Hellman, Washington, D. C.
2023-02-27
Reply of petitioners Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2023-02-27
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.
2023-02-03
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed). (Distributed)
2023-02-03
Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)
2023-02-01
Brief amicus curiae of Stussy, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2023-01-31
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.
2023-01-31
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.
2023-01-27
Brief of respondent Hetronic International, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2023-01-18
The deferred joint appendix is to be filed on or before February 3, 2023.
2023-01-12
Motion of respondent for an extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including January 27, 2023.
2023-01-11
Motion of respondent for an extension of time filed.
2023-01-06
REMOVED from the argument calendar for Wednesday, March 1, 2023.
2022-12-28
Record received from the U.S.D.C. Western District of Oklahoma. Sealed records transmitted electronically. The remaining record is available on PACER.
2022-12-27
Brief amici curiae of German Law Professors, et al. filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amici curiae of Three Intellectual Property Law Professors in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of European Commission on Behalf of the European Union in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of Professor William S. Dodge in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Dr. Louis Pahlow filed.
2022-12-27
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Guido Westkamp filed.
2022-12-21
Brief amicus curiae of Federal Circuit Bar Association in support of neither party filed.
2022-12-21
Record received from the U.S.C.A. Tenth Circuit. Sealed portions of Appendix transmitted electronically. The remaining record is available on PACER.
2022-12-20
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. for the Tenth Circuit.
2022-12-19
Brief of petitioners Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. filed.
2022-12-19
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 1, 2023.
2022-12-13
The Clerk has approved the deferred method for filing of the joint appendix per Rule 26.4.
2022-12-09
Letter requesting permission to file the joint appendix using the deferred method pursuant to Rule 26.4 filed.
2022-12-02
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Abitron Austria GmbH, et al.
2022-11-04
Petition GRANTED.
2022-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
2022-10-13
Supplemental brief of petitioners Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-10-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/28/2022.
2022-10-12
Supplemental brief of respondent Hetronic International, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-23
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
2022-05-02
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
2022-04-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
2022-04-12
Reply of petitioners Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-04-01
Rule 29.6 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed with respect to Brief in Opposition of Respondent Hetronic International.
2022-03-28
Brief of respondent Hetronic International, Inc. in opposition filed.
2022-02-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 28, 2022.
2022-02-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 25, 2022 to March 28, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2022)
2021-12-15
Application (21A153) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until January 21, 2022.
2021-12-09
Application (21A153) to extend further the time from December 22, 2021 to January 21, 2022, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
2021-11-15
Application (21A153) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until December 22, 2021.
2021-11-11
Application (21A153) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 22, 2021 to January 21, 2022, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
Attorneys
Abitron Austria GmbH, et al.
American Intellectual Property Law Association
European Commission on Behalf of the European Union
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Hetronic International, Inc.
Intellectual Property Owners Association
International Trademark Association
Professor Dr Louis Pahlow
Professor William S. Dodge
Three Intellectual Property Law Professors