of American consumers against confusion and Dunabin’s alleged infringing acts do not affect United States commerce, the Lanham Act cannot be applied extra-territorially. Lastly, the third Bulova factor considers whether issuance of injunction would interfere with trademark rights under the relevant foreign law, making such issuance inappropriate in light of international comity concerns. See Bulova, 344 U.S. at 285-86, 73 S.Ct. 252. As the Second Circuit explained, courts should avoid extending the Lanham Act extraterritorially when “the exercise of such power is fraught with possibilities of discord and conflict with the authorities of another country.” Vanity Fair Mills, 234 F.2d at 647; see also Int’l Cafe, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Cafe Int’l, Inc., 252 F.3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>). Here, Dunabin is a citizen of the United
holding that a ruling on a nondispositive issue would be inappropriate holding error was not preserved where the courts ruling was not unequivocal and whether the evidence offered by the state fell within the parameters of the ruling was uncertain holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion holding that the application of the lanham act extraterritorially was inappropriate for acts occurring mainly overseas because a ruling by a united states court on allegations of unfair competition  might interfere with an inconsistent ruling from the foreign jurisdictions courts holding the supreme court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the courts finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling until the court entered the decree that was contemplated by the finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling