Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.

Last updated
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 21, 2023
Decided June 29, 2023
Full case nameAbitron Austria GmbH, et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc.
Docket no. 21-1043
Citations600 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorHetronic International, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH, et al., No. CIV-14-650-F (W.D. Okla. 2020), Hetronic International, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH, et al., 10 F.4th 1016 (10th Cir. 2021)
Questions presented
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.
Holding
Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Jackson
ConcurrenceJackson
ConcurrenceSotomayor (in judgment), joined by Roberts, Kagan, Barrett
Laws applied
Lanham Act

Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., 600 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding provisions of the Lanham Act. The Court will decide whether or not the Act applies to foreign sales. [1]

Contents

Background

In the 1980s, German engineer Max Heckl founded Hetronic Steuersysteme GmbH. (HS), a German company. In 2000, Heckl would go on to form Hedtronic International, Inc. (HII), a U.S. company. HS and HII entered into an agreement that provided, among other things, that HS (and its two co-developers) were “sole owner[s]” of “all” intellectual property developed by any party, including “designs, product descriptions, trade marks, [and] trade names.”

In 2006, HS sold the "Hetronic" mark to HII. In 2008, Heckl would sell HII to the U.S. electronics company Methode Electronics, after which reorganized as respondent, Hedtronic International, Inc. This sale did not include the German company Hedtronic Steuersysteme, which had since been renamed Hedtronic Deutschland. Heckl sold Hedtronic Deutschland to Hedtronic Germany in 2010. Hetronic Germany was owned by Albert Fuchs and HydronicSteuersysteme GmbH, an Austrian company later renamed Hetronic Central Eastern Europe (HCEE).

Hetronic Germany and Hydronic-Steuersysteme licensed the “Hetronic” name from respondent (the reorganized Hectronic International, Inc.) and acted as its distributors. By this point, Fuchs was still unaware of the research and development agreement stating that Hetronic Steuersysteme (and its successor, Hetronic Germany) owned the intellectual property rights for the distributed products, as distinct from the "Hedtronic" trademark. Respondent later terminated this agreement.

Hetronic Germany and HCEE later reorganized as petitioners, Abitron Germany and Abitron Austria. Petitioners informed customers of the reorganization and new name – and their dissociation with other “Hetronic locations” like respondent – in letters sent on stationary containing “Hetronic Germany” and “Hetronic Central Eastern Europe” marks.

Understanding themselves to be in possession of the relevant trademarks, Abitron began competing against respondent (International). Abitron considered vying for the U.S. market, but the vast majority of Abitron's business remained in Germany and Austria.

Lower Court Decisions

District Court

International sued Abitron under the Lanham Act. In their complaint, International alleged that Abitron's sale of radio controls violated International's U.S. registered trademarks, unregistered trademarks, and trade dress. Of Abitron's roughly $90 million "worldwide" sales, about $88 million (97%) were "purely foreign" – that is, sales of goods in foreign countries by foreign vendors to foreign buyers to be used in foreign countries. International also accused Abitron of $2 million in sales of products that "could have ended up in" the U.S. For example, this included sales to foreign buyers who used the radio controls in cranes that may have later reached the United States. Lastly, International accused Abitron of roughly $240 thousand of sales to U.S. customers, though the majority of those sales were to either International or one of its affiliates. [2]

Petitioners sough summary judgment on the grounds that the Lanham Act did not apply extraterritorially to foreign sales. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma barred Abitron from introducing evidence that their "purely foreign" sales caused no consumer confusion among U.S. buyers. When a witness for respondents testified to domestic consumer confusion, petitioners were prevented from cross-examining this witness from clarifying that these examples involved non-U.S. buyers.

A jury awarded International roughly $90 million for violations of the Lanham Act, an amount equal to what International asserted Abitron's profits amounted to. This was despite the fact that a vast majority of these profits occurred outside the United States, and a great majority of the involved products never reached the United States. The District Court enjoined Abitron from using International's marks anywhere in the world.

Court of Appeals

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part. It decided not to limit the damages or the injunction to Abitron's solely U.S. sales. The court rested heavily on Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952), which stated that the Lanham Act applied to conduct “consummated in a foreign country by a citizen and resident of the United States,” where the U.S. defendant took “essential steps” “in the United States.” [3] The Tenth Circuit held that Steel implied some extraterritorial applications of the Lanham Act, but that many relevant details were still unclear. Other Courts of Appeals had developed tests for determining when the Act should apply extraterritorially, but instead developed its own two-step test for the purposes of this case. At the first step of the test, the court considered whether the defendants were U.S. citizens. If so, then the Lanham Act applies extrateritorially without further inquiry. If not, then the court proceeds to the second step of the test, which asks whether " the defendant’s conduct had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce.” [4]

At step one, the court concluded that petitioners were not U.S. citizens. At step two, however, the court concluded that petitioner's acts had a “substantial effect on U.S. commerce”, and that the Lanham Act should thus apply extraterritorially. Moreover, it held that the Act applied extraterritorially to all of petitioners’ foreign sales, based on the 3% that may have reached the U.S. The Court suggested that if any foreign conduct confused U.S. consumers, then the Act should apply to all of Abitron's foreign conduct. The Tenth Circuit did, however, restrict the injunction to only “countries in which [International] currently markets or sells its products.”

Supreme Court

Abitron petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case on January 21, 2022. On November 4, 2022, the Court granted certiorari. Oral arguments were held on March 21, 2023. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment and remanded for further proceedings in a unanimous decision that fractured 5–4 on the reasoning.

See also

Related Research Articles

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lanham Act</span> United States trademark law

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub. L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. is the primary federal trademark statute in the United States. In other words, the Act is the primary statutory foundation of United States trademark law at the federal level. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.

College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement.

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court construed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of New York to recover unpaid property taxes levied against India and Mongolia, both of which own real estate in New York.

United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must file an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. Morrison extinguished two species of securities class-action claims that had proliferated in preceding years: "foreign-cubed" claims, in which foreign plaintiffs sued foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges, and "foreign-squared" claims, brought by domestic plaintiffs against foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Ugg boots trademark disputes are the disputes between some footwear manufacturers, as to whether "ugg" is a protected trademark, or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection. In Australia and New Zealand, where "Ugg" is a generic term for the style of footwear, 702 registered trademarks include the term "Ugg" in various logos and designs. By contrast, UGG is a registered trademark of the California-based company Deckers Outdoor Corporation in over 130 countries worldwide, including the U.S., the European Union, and China.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937), was a dispute between the federal executive branch and the State of New York over property rights to a deposit from a former Russian corporation with August Belmont & Company, a private New York City banking firm. Belmont established executive predominance over state laws and constitutions in the sphere of foreign policy, and allocated the constitutional power for initiating executive agreements solely to the president of the United States.

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the exhaustion doctrine in patent law in which the Court held that after the sale of a patented item, the patent holder cannot sue for patent infringement relating to further use of that item, even when in violation of a contract with a customer or imported from outside the United States. The case concerned a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Lexmark against Impression Products, Inc., which bought used ink cartridges, refilled them, replaced a microchip on the cartridge to circumvent a digital rights management scheme, and then resold them. Lexmark argued that as they own several patents related to the ink cartridges, Impression Products was violating their patent rights. The U.S. Supreme Court, reversing a 2016 decision of the Federal Circuit, held that the exhaustion doctrine prevented Lexmark's patent infringement lawsuit, although Lexmark could enforce restrictions on use or resale of its contracts with direct purchasers under regular contract law. Besides printer and ink manufacturers, the decision of the case could affect the markets of high tech consumer goods and prescription drugs.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case from the United States Supreme Court which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.

Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2013.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

References

  1. ↑ "Justices to consider international reach of U.S. trademark law". SCOTUSblog. March 20, 2023.
  2. ↑ "Hetronic Int'l v. Hetronic Ger". casetext. October 29, 2021.
  3. ↑ Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).
  4. ↑ "Hetronic Int'l v. Hetronic Ger. Gmbh". casetext. August 21, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.