Page:Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc..pdf/11

8 as amicus curiae argues that the provisions focus on only likely consumer confusion.

The parties all seek support for their positions in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U. S. 280 (1952), but that decision is of little assistance here. There, we considered a suit alleging that the defendant, through activity in both the United States and Mexico, had violated the Lanham Act by producing and selling watches stamped with a trademark that was protected in the United States. Although we allowed the claim to proceed, our analysis understandably did not follow the two-step framework that we would develop decades later. Our decision was instead narrow and fact-bound. It rested on the judgment that “the facts in the record … when viewed as a whole” were sufficient to rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality. Id., at 285. In reaching this conclusion, we repeatedly emphasized both that the defendant committed “essential steps” in the course of his infringing conduct in the United States and that his conduct was likely to and did cause consumer confusion in the United States. Id., at 286–287; accord, e.g., id., at 286 (“His operations and their effects were not confined within the territorial limits of a foreign nation”); id., at 288 (“[P]etitioner by his ‘own deliberate acts, here and elsewhere, brought about forbidden results within the United States’ ” (alteration omitted)). Because Steele implicated both domestic conduct and a likelihood of domestic confusion, it does not tell us which one determines the domestic applications of §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1).

With Steele put aside, then, we think the parties’ particular debate over the “focus” of §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) in the abstract does not exhaust the relevant inquiry. The