It's specifically distinct from affs about TRIPS and other multilateral agreements.

I think it is fair to say that international intellectual property is generally seen as distinct from general (i.e. domestic) intellectual property (IP), both in terms of scholarship and teaching. Thus, from what I gather, international intellectual property panels tend not to draw huge crowds during the annual IP scholars meetings. However, I see a fair amount of overlap between general IP scholarship and the international IP issues that some of us tend to explore. Among others, I see overlap when it comes to questions about the role of IP, the scope of IP rights, and whether the current international model and the mandated levels of intellectual property protection align with societal goals.

Writing international intellectual property scholarship requires an understanding of international law, and trade law in particular. This is due to the merger between trade law and intellectual property law that came about as a result of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property, commonly referred to as TRIPS. Post-TRIPS, there have been a number of other “trade-related” agreements that aim to protect intellectual property rights in the global arena. In addition to various bilateral trade agreements and investment treaties, there are multilateral agreements that have chapters or provisions on intellectual property. These include the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The two latter agreements are currently being negotiated.

Just having some domestic activity doesn’t make the plan domestic – that broad interpretation means anything has an effect on domestic commerce would be topical

Alito ’23 [Samuel; June 29; justice of the US Supreme Court, writing the majority opinion in a 9-0 decision; Abitron Austria GMBH et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc., https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf]

italics in original

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s expansive understanding of the Lanham Act’s domestic applications threatens to negate the presumption against extraterritoriality. In Morrison, we warned that “the presumption against extraterritorial application would be a craven watchdog indeed if it retreated to its kennel whenever some domestic activity is involved in the case.” 561 U. S., at 266. If a claim under the Act involves a domestic application whenever particular “‘effects are likely to occur in the United States,’” post, at 5–6, the watchdog is nothing more than a muzzled Chihuahua. Under such a test, it would not even be necessary that “some” domestic activity be involved. It would be enough for there to be merely a likelihood of an effect in this country. Applying that standard here would require even less connection to the United States than some explicitly extraterritorial statutes, which must have, at a minimum, actual domestic effects to be invoked. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U. S. 764, 796 (1993) (holding that the extraterritorial provision at issue “applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States”).

This approach threatens “‘international discord.’” Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 115. In nearly all countries, including the United States, trademark law is territorial—i.e., “a trademark is recognized as having a separate existence in each sovereign territory in which it is registered or legally recognized as a mark.” 5 McCarthy §29:1, at 29–4 to 29–5. Thus, each country is empowered to grant trademark rights and police infringement within its borders. See, e.g., ibid.; Ingenohl v. Olsen & Co., 273 U. S. 541, 544 (1927); A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689, 692 (1923).

The plan’s extraterritorial because it applies to e-commerce

Kammel ’23 [Kari; 2023; Director of the Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection at Michigan State University and an adjunct professor of law at MSU College of Law; “Trademark Counterfeiting Enforcement Beyond Borders: The Complexities of Enforcing Trademark Rights Extraterritorially in a Global Marketplace with Territorial-Based Enforcement,” 33 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 595]

Despite the seemingly territorial nature of trademarks, the sale of trademarked goods on e-commerce and social media have exponentially increased the amount of cross-border transactions, and therefore also the amount of infringing goods sold online across multiple jurisdictions. Because infringers can reach potential consumers of goods and services anywhere in the world, a tension now exists between the territorial nature of a trademark and the global nature of the potential consumer. The basis for extraterritorial reach is mainly “to either prevent spillovers from extraterritorial activities into the local market (inbound regulation) or to protect and enforce the interests of the rightsholders also in other territories by implementing the local IP regime (outbound regulation).”19

Domestic means the plan can only apply to actual harm in US commerce – a broader interpretation is unpredictable

JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, 2022 – Counsel of Record for Arbitron. Brief for Petitioners in the case ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HETRONIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. Respondent.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1043/250394/20221219183705310_Abitron%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf //DH

II.A-B. The government agrees the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially. It suggests that applying the Act to a foreign sale represents a “domestic” application if the “effect” of that sale might be U.S. consumer confusion. That argument is waived and without merit. The Lanham Act requires “use in commerce.” Because the Act’s definition of “commerce” does not extend to foreign conduct, the “use in commerce” must be in the United States.

Likewise, the Act’s text and structure make clear that its “focus” is trademarks’ “use in commerce.” It is that “use” that must be domestic. The government suggests that the statute’s “focus” is consumer confusion, such that the Act is applied “domestically” to foreign conduct if that conduct has the potential “effect” of confusing U.S. consumers. But extraterritoriality is primarily concerned with conduct, not effects. The government’s standard is a test for determining when an extraterritorial law should cover foreign conduct—not distinguishing extraterritorial from domestic application. The government’s test gives the statutory term “use in commerce” inconsistent meanings. It is unpredictable, threatens international friction, and serves little practical purpose.

III.A. The Tenth Circuit’s diversion-of-foreign-sales theory—that the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially whenever U.S. plaintiffs claim lost foreign sales—distorts the Act beyond recognition. It is divorced from statutory text; exceeds the commerce power; and would impose a protectionist regime in breach of treaty obligations.

If the plan is only domestic, it can’t solve

Kammel ’23 [Kari; 2023; Director of the Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection at Michigan State University and an adjunct professor of law at MSU College of Law; “Trademark Counterfeiting Enforcement Beyond Borders: The Complexities of Enforcing Trademark Rights Extraterritorially in a Global Marketplace with Territorial-Based Enforcement,” 33 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 595]

Despite the existence of these treaties, trademark enforcement still lacks a harmonious global approach.45 The treaties rely on national courts to manage trademark litigation domestically.46 Countries have introduced new laws that directly address various trademark issues.47 However, a purely national approach cannot solve what is an international issue. If the extraterritorial reach of some jurisdictions is not expanded, some infringers will go unpunished and both trademark holders and consumers will be harmed. But merely extending the extraterritoriality of domestic jurisdiction will have detrimental effects on the trademark holders and raise further questions about which body enforces the law.