green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
28.5 score
“merely because the consummation of the unlawful activity occurred on foreign soil is of no assistance to the defendant”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hanesbrands Inc. v. Keds, LLC
merely because the consummation of the unlawful activity occurred on foreign soil is of no assistance to the defendant
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc.
That is, courts presume 2 See, e. g., Trader Joe's Co. v. Hallatt, 835 F. 3d 960, 969 (CA9 2016); McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F. 3d 107, 111 (CA1 2005); International Cafe, S. A. L. v. Hard Rock Cafe Int'l (U. S. A.), Inc., 252 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (CA11 2001); Aerogroup Int'l, Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., 152 F. 3d 948 (CA Fed. 1998); Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Aeropower Co., 34 F. 3d 246 , 250 (CA4 1994); American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Assn., 701 F. 2d 408, 414, n. 8 (CA5 1983); Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ReSea Project ApS v. Restoring Integrity to the Oceans, Inc.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 416 (5th Cir. 1983) (quoting Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. Barton Distilling Co., 489 F.2d 809, 812 (7th Cir. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commodores Entertainment Corporation v. McClary
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir. appropriate “[e]ven if exercising jurisdiction would interfere with [another nation’s] sovereignty.” Id. (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hetronic International Inc v. Hetronic Germany GMBH
The Fourth Circuit relied upon Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1991) and American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-415 (5th Cir. 1983), for the quoted statement.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trader Joe's Co. v. Michael Hallatt
(2×)
Rice, 701 F.2d at 414-15 (applying the Lanham Act to defendant’s sale of rice in Saudi Arabia, though the goods did not flow back into United States markets, because defendant’s business was located in the United States).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commodores Entertainment Corporation v. Thomas McClary
(2×)
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-16 (5th Cir.1983) (finding jurisdiction for an injunction outside the United States, where both parties were United States citizens, the defendant failed to establish that it had superior rights in the foreign country, where the sales of the product took place, and the effect on United States commerce was “more than ... insignificant”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tire Engineering & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paulsson Geophysical Services, Inc. v. Sigmar
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983) (internal citation and footnotes omitted). 3 Still, this Court noted that “some effect” on United States commerce, as opposed to a substantial effect, may be sufficient for that factor.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc.
(14×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co., 418 F.3d 535, 540 (5th Cir.2005) (citing Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.2003)). [4] 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir.1983). [5] Id. at 412. [6] Id. at 414. [7] Id. [8] Id. at 414-15. [9] Id. at 415.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd.
Rice, 701 F.2d at 414-15 (considering diverted sales in finding “some effects” test met).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scanvec Amiable Ltd. v. Chang
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983) (requiring effect on commerce to be “more than insignificant”); and see Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552 , 555 (9th Cir.1992) (expanding the conflict of laws analysis into a seven-part inquiry); see also 4 J.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Turicentro, S.A. v. American Airlines Inc.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 413-16 (5th Cir.1983); Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., 549 F.2d 597 , 613-15 (9th Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Turicentro, S.A. v. American Airlines Inc.
Ass'n, 701 F.2d 408, 413-16 (5th Cir.1983); Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., 549 F.2d 597 , 613-15 (9th Cir.1976). 14 Legislating on this background, Congress in 1982 enacted Title IV of the Export Trading Company Act — known as the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act — to facilitate domestic exports and to clarify the application of United States antitrust laws to foreign conduct.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 415 (5th Cir.1983) (“Merely because the consummation of the unlawful activity [Lan-ham Act violations involving watch reproductions] occurred on foreign soil is of no assistance to the defendant.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alcar Group, Inc. v. Corporate Performance Systems, Ltd.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quantum Fitness Corp. v. Quantum Lifestyle Centers, L.L.C.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida Ltd.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983), as gauged “in light of international comity concerns.” Nintendo, 34 F.3d at 250.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atlantic Richfield Company v. Arco Globus International Company, Inc.
Ass'n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir.1983) (domestic processing, packaging, transporting, and distributing rice products deemed "essential steps" under Bulova where ultimate sale occurred abroad), Arco has shown only that AGI had some contact with United States commerce.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. ARCO Globus International Co.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir.1983) (domestic processing, packaging, transporting, and distributing rice products deemed “essential steps” under Bulova where ultimate sale occurred abroad), Arco has shown only that AGI had some contact with United States commerce.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Les Ballets Trockadero De Monte Carlo, Inc. v. Trevino
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1983); or adverse impact on foreign licensees, see Playboy Enters. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 511 F.Supp. 486, 495 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff’d, 687 F.2d 563 (1982); see also Warnaco, 844 F.Supp. at 951-52 (reviewing the various grounds for determining that conduct has a substantial effect on United States commerce).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Warnaco Inc. v. VF Corp.
Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 414-16 (5th Cir.1983), the Fifth Circuit, in a case brought under the Lanham Act, held that, by selling products under infringing marks in Saudi Arabia, defendant diverted sales from the plaintiff.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. BC-USA, INC.
American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers, 701 F.2d 408, 410 (5th Cir.1983) (affirms district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from any acts likely to cause confusion in Saudi Arabian consumers), Franklin Mint Corp. v. Franklin Mint, Ltd., 360 F.Supp. 478, 482 (E.D.Pa.1973) (defendant held in contempt for violating injunction after placing an advertisement in a British newspaper).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ocean Garden, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee v. Marktrade Company, Inc. Alberto J. Soler, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellants
We find that “the sales of infringing goods in a foreign country may have a sufficient effect on commerce to invoke Lanham Act jurisdiction.” Van Doren Rubber Co. v. Mamatech Enterprises, Inc., 1989 WL 223017 *4 1989 U.S. LEXIS 17323 *11, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1587 (S.D.Cal.1989) (quoting American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 415-16 (5th Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reebok International Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc.
Accord John Walker and Sons, Ltd. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc., 821 F.2d 399, 408 , 3 USPQ.2d 1001, 1008 (7th Cir.1987) (the Bulova Court upheld a “broad concept of commerce” under the Lanham Act); American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 701 F.2d 408, 413 (5th Cir.1983) (hereinafter “American Rice ”) (the Bulova Court held that the “Lanham Act revealed a Congressional intent to exercise its power to the fullest”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Walker And Sons, Ltd. v. Demert & Dougherty, Inc.
In American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 701 F.2d 408, 413 (5th Cir.1983), the court relied on Steele to support the proposition that "the Lanham Act revealed a congressional intent to exercise its power to the fullest." In Scotch Whiskey, this court relied on Steele and stated: 50 "In Steele, the Supreme Court construed another section of the act, 15 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Walker & Sons, Ltd. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc.
In American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 701 F.2d 408, 413 (5th Cir.1983), the court relied on Steele to support the proposition that “the Lanham Act revealed a congressional intent to exercise its power to the fullest.” In Scotch Whiskey, this court relied on Steele and stated: “In Steele , the Supreme Court construed another section of the act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1), which creates a civil cause of action against one who uses an infringing mark ‘in commerce.’ The Court upheld a broad concept of “commerce.” 489 F.2d at 812 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
London Film Productions Ltd. v. Intercontinental Communications, Inc.
Ass’n., 701 F.2d 408, 417 (5th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof
See American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op Ass'n, 701 F.2d 408, 413 (5th Cir. 1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Haas Outdoors, Inc. v. Oak Country Camo., Inc.
See American Rice v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 532 F.Supp. 1376 (S.D.Tex.1982), aff'd 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
C-Cure Chemical Co., Inc. v. Secure Adhesives Corp.
See American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers, 701 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery
See, e.g., American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408, 413-15 (5th Cir.1983); Wells Fargo, 556 F.2d at 427 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reebok International, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc.
Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir.1985) (citations omitted); see also Ocean Garden, 953 F.2d at 503 (applying same factors). 1 4 The first two requirements of Timberlane I are unquestionably met here. " ' "[T]he sales of infringing goods in a foreign country may have a sufficient effect on commerce to invoke Lanham Act jurisdiction." ' " Ocean Garden, 953 F.2d at 503 (quoting Van Doren Rubber Co. v. Marnatech Enterprises, 1989 WL 223017 * 4, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 17323 * 11, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1587 (S.D.Cal.1989) (quoting American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass'n, 701 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reebok International, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc.
Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir.1985) (citations omitted); see also Ocean Garden, 953 F.2d at 503 (applying same factors). 1 The first two requirements of Timberlane I are unquestionably met here. “ ‘ “[T]he sales of infringing goods in a foreign country may have a sufficient effect on commerce to invoke Lanham Act jurisdiction.” ’ ” Ocean Garden, 953 F.2d at 503 (quoting Van Doren Rubber Co. v. Marnatech Enterprises, 1989 WL 223017 *4, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 17323 *11, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1587 (S.D.Cal.1989) (quoting American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Ali Boureslan v. Aramco, Arabian American Oil Co. And Aramco Service Company
(4×)
See, e.g., American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir.1983) (Lanham Act); Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C.Cir.1984) (Sherman Act). 10 The majority next points to Title VII enforcement provisions relating to state 'law conflicts, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(c), (d), (e), arguing that “[i]f Congress had intended the Act to apply in foreign countries, we would expect Congress to have been even more careful to address conflicts with foreign discrimination laws.” Looking again to the amended ADEA, which contains…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ali Boureslan v. Aramco, Arabian American Oil Company and Aramco Service Company
(2×)
See, e.g., American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir.1983) (Lanham Act); Laker Airways v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C.Cir.1984) (Sherman Act).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tisdale v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
See also, American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Coop Association, 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Keith W. Lorenzen
v.
South Central Bell Telephone Company, Defendant-Third Party v. Clearview of Clinton, Inc., Third Party
v.
South Central Bell Telephone Company, Defendant-Third Party v. Clearview of Clinton, Inc., Third Party
82-4348.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 28, 1983.
Published
Keith W. LORENZEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Third Party
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLEARVIEW OF CLINTON, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellant.
No. 82-4348
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
March 28, 1983.
Downey & Brown, Jackson, Miss., Rexford T. Brown, Jackson, Miss., for Clearview of Clinton, Inc.
Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, W. Scott Welch, III, George H. Butler, Roger M. Flynt, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for South Central Bell Telephone Co.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter L. Nixon, Jr., Judge.
Before RUBIN, REAVLEY and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
1
AFFIRMED for the reasons given by the district court. 546 F.Supp. 694 (S.D.Miss.1982).