Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. (2023): Trademarks Across Territories

Background/Facts of the Case

Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. explores whether United States patents protect domestic companies from international trademark infringement.

Hetronic International, Inc., sells remote controls for construction projects within the United States. In order to sell its products abroad, Hetronic allowed Abitron Austria GmbH to distribute the remote controls in Europe. However, Abitron concluded that it owned rights to the remote controls’ trademark because of a prior research and development agreement with Hetronic. Abitron claimed that it “owned all the technology developed under or before the agreement” and began to produce and sell Hetronic’s products as its own. The Abitron-produced controls still bore the Hetronic logos, and the new manufacturers sold the product to both international and U.S. consumers. Even after Hetronic ended their partnership with Abitron, Abitron continued to make millions of dollars in profit from the remote controls. 

Hetronic sued Abitron in the Western District Court of Oklahoma under the Lanham Act, citing two clauses as evidence that Hetronic had sole ownership of the trademark. First, §1114(1)(a) of the Lanham Act forbids companies to “use in commerce any reproduction…of a registered mark in connection…offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any good” if “such use is likely to cause confusion.” Hetronic insisted that Abitron’s sale of the radio controls would cause consumers to mistake the Abitron controls for the Hetronic controls. The Abitron product’s appearance was identical to the Hetronic original. The second clause was §1125(a)(1), a similar restriction on sale when such “us[e] in commerce” “is likely to cause confusion.” §1125(a)(1) broadens the circumstances when trademark protections apply, preventing another company from selling a product even if the original company did not register the product’s trademark. 

The Oklahoma District Court agreed with Hetronic and awarded them roughly $100 million in damages, issuing an injunction to prevent Abitron from selling the radio controls in any country. While Abitron insisted that the Lanham Act only applies to domestic products, the district court disagreed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit again sided with Hetronic about the Lanham Act’s implications for international commerce. The case traveled to the Supreme Court to resolve a Circuit Court dispute about whether the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially.


In a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with Abitron’s defense, rejecting Hetronic’s international application of the Lanham Act. The justices based their ruling on the outcome of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which determined that “legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” This ruling helps forestall conflict when international provisions would conflict with United States laws. When deciding whether Congress intended for its legislation to extend to the international sphere, Morrison indicates that legislators would need to have “affirmatively and unmistakably instructed” that the clauses applied extraterritorially. In the case of the Lanham Act, Congress did not make such a declaration. 

Having determined that the Lanham Act did not have extraterritorial implications, the Court then questioned the Lanham Act’s focus and whether “the conduct relevant to that focus occurred in United States territory,” following precedent from WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. The Court determined that the Lanham Act’s focus was “use in commerce,” a domestic concern, so the Lanham Act does not indicate an extraterritorial application. 

Owing to the contents and context of the Lanham Act, the Supreme Court concluded that its provision only applies to commerce within the United States. The justices sided with Abitron, rejecting Hetronic’s claims of trademark infringement. 


Potential implications of the decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. include the possibility for foreign companies to replicate and market United States products abroad. Such international commerce might not cause direct domestic confusion about the products’ true manufacturers. However, an increasingly interconnected global market might render online sales ‘confusing’ in the future, especially if those companies claim the logos of their domestic counterparts. With similar considerations in mind, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion holds particular weight. While agreeing with the Court’s overall decision, Sotomayor believes that the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially when there is a likelihood of consumer confusion. She claims that “a domestic application of the statute can implicate foreign conduct” in certain circumstances, especially since Abitron sold a few remote controls to U.S. consumers. In other words, Sotomayor believes that the Court should have explored the potential for Abitron’s products to impact Hetronic’s reputation within the United States.

Kara Bivens is from Waxhaw, NC, studying Political Science, Statistical Science, and Spanish.

Tags: No tags

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *