Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court set new geographic limits for infringement and false designation of origin claims raised under Sections 1114 and 1125(a) of the Lanham Act. In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., No. 21-1043, the Court held these Lanham Act claims do not extend extraterritorially, and only apply where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. 216 L. Ed. 2d 1013; 2023 U.S.P.Q.2d 760 (2023). The decision vacates a $95 million dollar damages award that was premised on infringing conduct that occurred primarily outside the United States.
Though the decision does not address and will not limit a trademark owner's ability to establish, for registration purposes, use in commerce through sales extending into foreign countries, it does limit a trademark owner's ability to enforce its rights in U.S. courts should a third party infringe its marks abroad. Given the global nature of business today, the decision highlights the need for trademark owners to continually reassess and, perhaps, expand their international trademark registration strategy as product lines and brands become more international in scope.
Hetronic manufactures radio remote controls for construction equipment that incorporate a distinctive black and yellow color scheme, and which have been distributed in more than 45 countries around the world. Abitron (which includes five foreign entities — Abitron Germany GmbH, Abitron Austria GmbH, Hetronic Germany GmbH, Hydronic-Steuersysteme GmbH, and ABI Holding GmbH — and one foreign individual) had originally operated as Hetronic's licensed distributor. However, Abitron later claimed ownership of Hetronic's intellectual property rights, including the marks forming the basis of Hetronic's claims. Abitron reverse-engineered Hetronic's products and began selling Hetronic-branded products primarily in Europe (with some direct sales into the United States).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?