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 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 ReadingTheir Beef Is with Burger King
The Justices have not yet given us good reasons to give up on International Shoe. Instead, their complaints are really about the doctrinal scaffolding that the Burger and Rehnquist Courts built on top of International Shoe in the 1980s.
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Finds Tech Companies Not Liable for Terrorism
Last week, the Supreme Court decided two cases in which plaintiffs alleged that social media companies aided and abetted international terrorism. In the first case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the Justices unanimous interpreted the Antiterrorism Act’s (ATA) provision on aiding and abetting to require conscious and culpable participation. Plaintiffs’ allegations that ISIS used defendants’ social…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Decides Twitter and Google Cases
The Supreme Court issued opinions this morning in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Golzalez v. Google LLC. It held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that these social media companies had aided and abetted ISIS in terrorist attacks abroad failed to state a claim under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. More coverage soon on TLB.
Continue Reading