Abstract
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the extraterritorial impact of the Trademark Act of 1946, also known as the Lanham Act (the “Act”). Overturning the ruling by the Tenth Circuit, the Court narrowed the focus of the Act to solely domestic uses in commerce. While the Court acknowledged that it had interpreted the statute in a manner that granted Congress expansive power over foreign conduct, it stated that the broad language of the Lanham Act does not indicate international application. By instituting newfound principles on congressional authority under the Lanham Act, U.S. trademark registrants can seek protection under the Act when the infringing activity occurs inside U.S. borders.
This Comment will discuss the legislative history interpreting the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act in light of the recent Supreme Court decision Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. Further, this Comment will argue that the McBee framework properly accounts for a core purpose of the Act, preventing consumer confusion. Lastly, this Comment will recommend that on remand the lower court should consider whether there were infringing uses in U.S. commerce under the R-R Nabisco framework, and that Congress should clarify what is meant by “commerce” under the Lanham Act.
Included in
Business Organizations Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons