| |
| | Appellate Law & Practice: CA1: Lanham extraterritorial jurisdiction analysis |
 | | The court notes that comity analysis is party of subject matter jurisdiction (hint, hint, DC Circuit), and that “Comity considerations, including potential conflicts with foreign trademark law, are properly treated as questions of whether a court should, in its discretion, decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction that it already possesses.” |
 | | Further, when the Lanham Act plaintiff seeks to enjoin sales in the United States, there is no question of extraterritorial application; the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” |
 | | Delica, No. 04-2733, analysis “as a matter of first impression for this circuit, to lay out a framework for determining when such extraterritorial use of the Lanham Act is proper.” The First rejects the approaches used by other circuits. |
| appellate.typepad.com /appellate/2005/08/ca1_lanham_extr.html (317 words) |
|