Steele et al. v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc.
344 U.S. 280 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Lanham Act applies extraterritorially to the conduct of a United States citizen in a foreign country when that conduct has a substantial effect on United States commerce and does not conflict with the law of the foreign nation.
Facts:
- Bulova Watch Company, Inc., a New York corporation, manufactured, advertised, and sold watches under its registered 'Bulova' trademark in the United States and abroad, including in Mexico.
- Sidney Steele, a United States citizen residing in Texas, moved his watch business to Mexico City.
- In 1933, Steele discovered that the 'Bulova' trademark was not registered in Mexico and proceeded to register it there under his own name.
- Steele imported watch components from Switzerland and the United States to his facility in Mexico City.
- In Mexico, Steele assembled watches and stamped them with the 'Bulova' name, which he then sold.
- Defective watches produced by Steele were brought into the United States by purchasers, leading to complaints from retail jewelers in the Mexican border area who received them for repair, thereby damaging the reputation of the Bulova Watch Company.
Procedural Posture:
- Bulova Watch Company, Inc. filed suit against Steele in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Steele's allegedly illegal acts were committed in Mexico, not the United States.
- Bulova appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the claim was within the jurisdiction of the Lanham Act.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a United States District Court have jurisdiction under the Lanham Act to grant relief against a U.S. citizen for acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition committed in a foreign country?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. A United States District Court has jurisdiction because the Lanham Act's broad definition of commerce extends to the infringing acts of a U.S. citizen abroad that have a significant, detrimental effect on U.S. commerce. The Court reasoned that Congress has the power to govern the conduct of its citizens beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States. Steele's actions were not confined to Mexico; he purchased components in the U.S., and his spurious 'Bulovas' filtered back into the U.S., harming Bulova's reputation in domestic and foreign markets. The Court distinguished this case from American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., noting that Steele's own acts, not the sovereign acts of a foreign nation, caused the forbidden results within the United States. Furthermore, because Mexican courts had recently nullified Steele's registration, there was no conflict with foreign law that would prevent a U.S. court from issuing an injunction.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Reed
No. The court lacks jurisdiction because the Lanham Act should not be construed to apply extraterritorially without a specific statement of congressional intent to do so. The dissent argued that there is a strong presumption that U.S. legislation applies only within its territorial jurisdiction. The infringing acts—stamping the name 'Bulova' on watches and selling them—all occurred in Mexico. The dissent contended that the Act's broad definition of 'commerce' was insufficient to overcome this presumption, likening it to the general language of the Sherman Act, which was held not to apply abroad in American Banana. Extending U.S. trademark law in this manner risks creating conflicts with the laws of other sovereign nations, which should only be done with explicit congressional direction.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act based on the 'effects test.' The Court's decision affirmed that U.S. trademark law is not limited by territorial borders when the infringer is a U.S. citizen and their foreign activities have a substantial, adverse effect on U.S. commerce. This ruling provided a powerful tool for U.S. brand owners to combat foreign infringement by U.S. nationals. The analysis hinges on a combination of the defendant's citizenship, the effect on U.S. commerce, and the absence of conflict with foreign law, a framework that has influenced the application of other U.S. statutes abroad.
