Page:Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc..pdf/8

Rh of the provisions at issue—were committed in the United States); Morrison, 561 U. S., at 266–267, 271–273 (concluding that a claim was a foreign application of the Securities and Exchange Act because the “purchase-and-sale transactions” at issue occurred outside of the United States).

Step two is designed to apply the presumption against extraterritoriality to claims that involve both domestic and foreign activity, separating the activity that matters from the activity that does not. After all, we have long recognized that the presumption would be meaningless if any domestic conduct could defeat it. See Morrison, 561 U. S., at 266. Thus, “ ‘[i]f the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States, then the case involves a permissible domestic application’ of the statute, ‘even if other conduct occurred abroad.’ ” WesternGeco, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337). And “if the relevant conduct occurred in another country, ‘then the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial application regardless of any other conduct that occurred in U. S. territory.’ ” WesternGeco, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337). Of course, if all the conduct “ ‘regarding [the] violations ‘took place outside the United States,’ ” then courts do “not need to determine … the statute’s ‘focus’ ” at all. RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337. In that circumstance, there would be no domestic conduct that could be relevant to any focus, so the focus test has no filtering role to play. See, e.g., Nestlé, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5); Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 124.

With this well-established framework in mind, the first question is whether the relevant provisions of the Lanham Act, see §§1114(1)(a), 1125(a)(1), provide “a clear, affirmative indication” that they apply extraterritorially, RJR