Ninth Circuit Clarifies U.S. Trademark Reach: No Infringement Where Sales Are Entirely Overseas
Ninth Circuit Clarifies U.S. Trademark Reach: No Infringement Where Sales Are Entirely Overseas
In a significant ruling that reaffirms the territorial limits of U.S. trademark law, the Ninth Circuit recently held, on July 15, 2025, that Doctor’s Best, Inc. did not infringe Nature’s Way Products, LLC’s trademark for "Nature's Way" by using the mark "Nature’s Day" on products exclusively sold outside the United States. The case offers valuable insight into how U.S. trademark protections apply—or don’t apply—when the allegedly infringing products are only manufactured and shipped from the United States but never sold in domestic markets.
Case Background: “Nature’s Day” vs. “Nature’s Way”
Nature’s Way Products, LLC owns the well-known U.S. trademark "Nature’s Way", a brand widely recognized in the health supplements and vitamins market.
Doctor’s Best, Inc., also a dietary supplement company, launched a line of products under the name "Nature’s Day." However, these products were intended solely for foreign markets and were never marketed or sold in the United States. That said, the products were manufactured in the U.S., labeled here, and exported abroad—prompting Nature’s Way to file a lawsuit, alleging infringement based on these U.S.-based activities.
Key Legal Question: Does U.S. Trademark Law Apply If Goods Aren’t Sold Domestically?
At the heart of the case was whether Section 1114 of the Lanham Act (which governs trademark infringement) applies when:
The allegedly infringing mark is used exclusively in foreign commerce, and
The only U.S. connection is manufacturing and shipment.
The Ninth Circuit answered with a resounding “NO.”
The Ninth Circuit’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the territorial nature of trademark rights: U.S. trademark law is designed to protect consumers and commerce within the United States. It does not reach activities that have no effect on U.S. consumers or domestic commerce.
Specifically, the court held: “There is no likelihood of confusion in U.S. commerce when the allegedly infringing goods are manufactured here but sold exclusively abroad.”
In other words, simply making and shipping products from the U.S.—without ever selling or advertising them domestically—does not constitute infringement under U.S. law.
What This Means for Brands and Manufacturers
This ruling provides important clarity for U.S.-based manufacturers that serve international markets:
Export-only goods using similar or even potentially conflicting marks do not automatically trigger trademark liability under U.S. law, assuming no domestic sales or advertising occurs.
The decision reinforces that likelihood of confusion among U.S. consumers is a central requirement for trademark infringement.
However, the decision does not give a free pass to all international uses:
If foreign-marked goods re-enter the U.S. market, or
If the brand is promoted to U.S. audiences, even indirectly (e.g., via global websites or social media), then trademark holders may still have a valid claim.
Takeaway Message
For businesses operating globally, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling offers some peace of mind: as long as your branding decisions are clearly separated by geography, and U.S. consumers are not affected, your export strategy is unlikely to trigger domestic trademark litigation.
But tread carefully—cross-border digital presence or global branding can still blur these lines.