An "Americas" Button on a Dutch Website Triggers U.S. Trademark Law
A Dutch software company put a button labeled "Americas" on its website, offering customers in North and South America a product built with source code and customer data accessed on U.S. servers.
dmarcian, the American company that owned the code, sued in North Carolina. In dmarcian, Inc. v. DMARC Advisor BV (July 10, 2026), Judge Wilkinson's Fourth Circuit panel upheld an injunction barring the Dutch company from serving customers anywhere outside Europe, Africa, and Russia.
The Dutch company began as dmarcian's licensed distributor for Europe and Africa, then went past that license, copied dmarcian's website and branding, and marketed to American customers.
The Panel's Analysis
Trademarks
U.S. trademark law generally stops at the border. After the Supreme Court's 2023 Abitron decision, courts determine whether the mark was used to sell or advertise inside the United States, and advertising is domestic when its intended recipients are here. The "Americas" button, direct messages to U.S. customers, and one American customer who switched amounted to selling and advertising in the United States. A website merely reachable from the U.S. would not be.
Trade Secrets
The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies by its terms to conduct abroad, so long as at least one step in the theft happened in the United States. The court found reaching into U.S. servers and then marketing to Americans was such a step. The statute's "reach is global," the court said, even though the product was built and sold abroad.
State Law Claims
The border default is a rule for reading federal statutes, so it does not limit state claims like interference with customer contracts. The limit is constitutional: the state needs a real connection to the dispute. North Carolina qualified because dmarcian is based there and its customer relationships were the target.
Takeaways for AI and Software Companies
- Where the data lives is leverage. Model weights, training data, and code hosted in U.S. regions can supply the domestic step that opens the federal trade secret statute.
- Partner agreements decide the theory. Contracts fixing territory and permitted use turn ordinary competition into trade secret theft.
Three paragraphs of the order apply worldwide, but the exception for Europe, Africa, and Russia matches the territory the Dutch company was licensed to serve. The court thus enforced the original deal's boundaries rather than issuing a global decree. Whether a statute reaching conduct abroad also permits a worldwide order is the open question. This is an early-stage ruling on who is likely to win, not a final judgment.
Resources
- Opinion: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231790.P.pdf
- Authorities: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc., 600 U.S. 412 (2023); Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 1836(b)(1), 1837; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 313 (1981).
- Analysis: Maggie Gardner, "Fourth Circuit Affirms Extraterritorial Injunction in IP Dispute," Transnational Litigation Blog: https://tlblog.org/fourth-circuit-affirms-extraterritorial-injunction-in-ip-dispute/
- Prior decision: dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Eur. BV, 60 F.4th 119 (4th Cir. 2023).