The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to clarify the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act for the first time in seventy years.  The decision will impact corporations’ ability to seek damages for international trademark infringement, and may resolve a circuit split on the applicability of the Lanham Act on foreign defendants’ foreign conduct.  The Court will review the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic International Inc. (“Hetronic”) and the extraterritoriality of the Lanham Act, seemingly the Court’s desired outcome after requesting the United States weigh in on Abitron Austria GmbH’s (“Abitron”) certiorari petition filed in January 2022. 

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court to Decide the Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act

In the recent article, “Why Hermès’ MetaBirkins Lawsuit Has High Stakes for Brands and Creators”, featured in The Business of Fashion, Partner Preetha Chakrabarti expands upon her insights from the her previous blog posts on non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) and the metaverse. Previously, Chakrabarti reported on how the designer, Hermès, sued an individual named Mason

On Monday, May 20, 2019 the Supreme Court settled a decades-long circuit split regarding a licensee’s ongoing trademark usage rights following the rejection of a trademark license agreement under the U.S. bankruptcy code. In an eight to one decision, the Court found that “rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it. And that means

On July 27, 2017, Crowell & Moring will be presenting a webinar hosted by the United States Fashion Industry Association on the hottest IP Supreme Court decisions from 2017 that will affect the fashion and retail industries.  Anne Li and Preetha Chakrabarti of Crowell will be discussing Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. and

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying the circumstances in which a lawsuit “arises out of” or “relates to” a corporation’s contacts with a particular jurisdiction, such that it can be sued there. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Alito held that California state courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the product liability claims of non-California residents against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., a foreign corporation. The Court reasoned that the nonresident plaintiffs “do not claim to have suffered harm in that state” from their use of BMS’ drug Plavix, and “all the conduct giving rise to the nonresidents’ claims occurred elsewhere.” The Supreme Court found insufficient BMS’ substantial sales in California, including through its use of 250 sales representatives in that state.


Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court: Shaping the Personal Jurisdiction Landscape in Product Liability Cases