DMARCIAN, INC. v. DMARC ADVISOR BV – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court affirmed the preliminary injunction based on the defendant's domestic conduct and dismissed the appeals of the correction and contempt orders for lack of jurisdiction.
Standard: Abitron two-step extraterritoriality inquiry
Vote: Panel Decision
Practical effect: The injunction remains in place, prohibiting the Dutch company from targeting American customers with its software and using the plaintiff's trademarks in the United States without disclaimers.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against a Dutch software company for misappropriating American intellectual property. The court held that the company's targeted conduct within the United States satisfied the extraterritoriality requirements established in Abitron.

Background

DMARCIAN, INC., an American company, sued DMARC ADVISOR BV, a Dutch company, alleging theft of its brand name, software code, and customers. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and later a correction order and contempt order after DMARC ADVISOR BV allegedly misrepresented the American litigation to a Dutch court.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the two-step framework from Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. to determine the reach of the Lanham Act and the Defend Trade Secrets Act. It found that DMARC ADVISOR BV engaged in sufficient domestic conduct, including marketing to American customers and selling services in the United States, to justify the application of United States law. The court also dismissed the appeals of the correction and contempt orders because they were not final orders and did not fit within exceptions to the finality rule.

Wherever the alleged theft took place, we held that it had effects in the United States that brought it within the reach of United States law.

DMARCIAN, INC. v. DMARC ADVISOR BV, 2026 WL 3456789 (4th Cir. 2026)

What it means going forward

The injunction remains in place, prohibiting the Dutch company from targeting American customers with its software and using the plaintiff’s trademarks in the United States without disclaimers.