Stare Decisis and Extraterritoriality
In a recent post, Curt Bradley suggested that the hardest problem the Supreme Court faces as it revisits the geographic scope of the Lanham (Trademark) Act in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. is what to do about existing precedent. In Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. (1952), the Court held that the Act applies to…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court to Revisit Extraterritorial Scope of Trademark Law
On March 1, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., which concerns the extraterritorial scope of the Lanham (Trademark) Act. In resolving this case, the Court will need to decide what to do about an old precedent that appears to be inconsistent with the Court’s modern approach to…
Continue ReadingOral Argument in Doe v. Apple
Last week, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Doe v. Apple, a case brought by victims of forced labor and human trafficking against five U.S. technology companies. The plaintiffs are children or family members of children who were injured or killed mining cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The defendants—Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft,…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: United States v. Bowman
One hundred years ago, on November 13, 1922, Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Bowman, holding that a federal statute that made it a criminal offense to conspire to defraud a corporation owned by U.S. government applied extraterritorially to conduct on the high seas and in Brazil….
Continue ReadingSupreme Court to Decide Extraterritorial Reach of Trademark Statute
Today the Supreme Court granted review in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. to consider when the federal trademark statute, known as the Lanham Act, applies extraterritorially. In Steele v. Bulova Watch (1952), the Court held that the act applied extraterritorially to the infringement of a U.S. trademark in Mexico. But lower courts have developed different tests for implementing Steele, creating a…
Continue ReadingSecond Circuit Again Limits Extraterritorial Reach of Commodity Exchange Act
In Laydon v. Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A., the Second Circuit once again held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) does not apply to futures contracts traded on U.S. exchanges that are tied to the values of foreign commodities. Although the transactions in this case undoubtedly occurred in the United States, the court held that the claims…
Continue ReadingCert Petition Highlights Split on Extraterritorial Application of Civil RICO
In RJR Nabisco v. European Community (2016), the Supreme Court held that RICO’s civil cause of action requires a domestic injury to business or property. The Court noted, however, that “[t]he application of this rule in any given case will not always be self-evident, as disputes may arise as to whether a particular alleged injury…
Continue ReadingDoes the TVPRA Apply Extraterritorially? Thoughts on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Amicus Brief in Doe v. Apple
As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of the implied cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), victims of human rights abuses have looked to other U.S. statutes for remedies. One of these is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which creates a civil remedy against perpetrators and others…
Continue ReadingTerritoriality v. Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property
A core principle in U.S. intellectual property (IP) law is that IP rights are territorially limited. A U.S. patent, copyright, trademark, or trade secret affords the holder exclusive rights solely within the United States. This principle also exists at the international level, as reflected in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)….
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Dismisses Mexico’s Suit Against U.S. Gunmakers
Last week, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts (Chief Judge Dennis Saylor) dismissed a complaint brought by Mexico against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one distributor. According to the complaint, the defendants design, market, and sell guns in ways they know will arm Mexican drug cartels. Mexico has strict gun laws, but an…
Continue Reading