Supreme Court Holds that Trademark Statute Applies Only to Domestic Conduct
Last week, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the federal trademark statute—known as the Lanham Act—applies only to domestic conduct infringing U.S. trademarks. The case involved foreign companies that put U.S.-protected trademarks on products that they made in Europe, most of which were sold to customers abroad, but…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Holds Lanham Act Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
In Abitron Austria v. Hectronic International, the Supreme Court held that the federal trademark statute does not apply extraterritoriality, with the majority emphasizing that conduct relevant to the statute’s focus must occur within the United States.
Continue ReadingSome Thoughts on Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Great Lakes Insurance SE, Petitioner v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC during the 2023 Term. This case has the potential to change the way that federal courts evaluate the enforceability of choice-of-law clauses. Over the past few decades, these provisions have become ubiquitous. One study found…
Continue ReadingMallory Decision Opens New Path for Personal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory re-opens the door to suing foreign companies in U.S. courts over disputes that arise in other countries. It may also have significant repercussions for personal jurisdiction doctrine more broadly.
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Decides Mallory v. Norfolk Southern
For prior TLB coverage of this case, see here. The Supreme Court (finally) issued a decision today in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, holding that Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, which requires out-of-state businesses to consent to all-purpose jurisdiction in Pennsylvania courts, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Alito joined Justice Gorsuch’s…
Continue ReadingSmagin‘s Surprises
Last week’s decision in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin was surprising in a number of respects, from the line-up of the Justices to the possible shift it signals in the presumption against extraterritoriality.
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Approves Using Civil RICO to Help Enforce Arbitral Awards
Last week, the Supreme Court held in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin that civil RICO can be used to help enforce foreign arbitral awards. Specifically, the Court held that concealing assets to avoid paying a U.S. judgment that confirmed a foreign arbitral award could satisfy civil RICO’s “domestic injury” requirement, allowing the award-creditor to pursue a claim…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court decides Yegiazaryan v. Smagin
The Supreme Court just released its opinion in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin. For prior coverage on TLB by Bill Dodge see here, here, here, and here. The issue in the case was whether the plaintiff adequately plead a domestic injury under RICO. The foreign plaintiff alleged that the defendants worked together illegally to frustrate his collection…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California
Thirty years ago next week, the Supreme Court addressed the extraterritorial reach of U.S. antitrust laws in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California. The Court reiterated that the Sherman Act applies to anticompetitive conduct abroad that causes substantial intended effects in the United States, but it divided sharply over the role of “international comity.” Writing…
Continue ReadingWaiving Choice of Law
When I teach Conflict of Laws, I tell my students that they must always perform a choice-of-law analysis when there is a conflict between the laws of two jurisdictions. This is sound advice for doing well on the final exam. It is not, however, strictly true. In fact, litigants waive this issue all the time….
Continue Reading