October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1043
Does the Lanham Act reach trademark infringement committed entirely abroad?
Abitron claims Hetronic infringed its U.S. trademarks in Europe. Hetronic argues the law does not apply to foreign conduct.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Lucas Walker argued the Lanham Act does not apply to foreign use of trademarks.
Walker stated the Act lacks clear indication to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality.
Walker noted Hetronic received only one complaint from a European customer.
That customer identified the genuine part on site and rejected the infringing product.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-53 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Court must decide if the Lanham Act applies to trademark infringement occurring outside the United States. Abitron seeks to hold Hetronic liable for foreign sales. Hetronic seeks dismissal based on the presumption against extraterritoriality.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 21, 2023.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 9-25
What each side wants
Abitron wants the Court to affirm the lower court's application of the Lanham Act to foreign conduct.
Hetronic wants the Court to reverse the lower court and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
What each side says
Abitron argues the Lanham Act's broad language has reached overseas infringement since 1952.
Hetronic argues the statute lacks clear affirmative indication of extraterritorial application.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked why foreign sales to U.S. buyers are not aiding and abetting.
Justice Barrett asked if the Court should overrule prior precedent to align with modern jurisprudence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-53 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-47
Why it matters
This case defines the geographic limits of federal trademark protection. It determines whether U.S. companies can sue foreign entities for overseas infringement. The outcome shapes global trade and intellectual property enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-53 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 35-27 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 35-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.