Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Should Foreign Companies Face Lanham Act Sanctions for Trademark Infringement Occurring Abroad?
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the federal Lanham Act should be interpreted so broadly that domestic companies can leverage it to bar trademark infringement by — and seek significant damage awards against — foreign entities operating almost entirely overseas.
The question has come to a head as companies seeking to protect their trademarks in an increasingly global economy confront an international patchwork of intellectual property laws that vary from country to country. Although it is well-established that the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq., has extraterritorial reach, the Court has never articulated a definitive test for its application abroad. Its decision in Hetronic Int'l, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH, 10 F.4th 1016 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. granted sub nom. Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc., No. 21-1043 (U.S. Nov. 4, 2022), concerns a recent Tenth Circuit decision upholding a nearly $90 million damage award against a European entity and to settle the debate among various other circuits regarding the Act's scope. In Hetronic, nearly 97% of the sales found to be infringing occurred abroad, but the Tenth Circuit upheld the award on the basis that they had a "substantial effect" on U.S. commerce.
During oral argument held on March 21, 2023, the Court grappled with how to treat its 70-year-old decision in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 287 (1952). Steele was the Court's original pronouncement that the Lanham Act has "sweeping reach into 'all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress,'" including activity occurring abroad. Should the case be overruled altogether, the justices asked? Or is there a way to square it with more recent jurisprudence addressing extraterritorial application of other federal statutes?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.