Brian Coleman Comments on Extraterritoriality in Trademark Law With Law360

In “What to Know About High Court Fight Over TM Law’s Reach,” Law360 turned to business litigation partner Brian Coleman for his commentary on the latest U.S. Supreme Court case regarding extraterritoriality in trademark law.

“As one might expect, some think that the appellant’s argument is strongest as to this ... category of damages [involving goods sold abroad that never reached the U.S.], and appears to be the court’s focus,” said Coleman.

According to Coleman, in addition to the circuit split over the foreign scope of trademark law, there is a “separate line of [Supreme Court] precedent” that has developed in recent years with regard to when a federal statute should be applied extraterritorially, such as in the rulings of cases Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. and RJR Nabisco Inc. v. European Community, which “have clarified and constrained the extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes” involving securities and racketeering laws.

The Supreme Court case “presents an opportunity to both resolve the circuit split and potentially reconcile Steele [in 1952] with the Supreme Court’s more modern framework for determining the territorial reach of federal laws,” noted Coleman.