left with “no remedy at all” if Costa Rican courts could not enjoin Dole’s activities in the United States and Honduras, where Dole grows its pineapples. In contrast, it is well-established that a United States district court is the proper jurisdiction to “award relief to an American corporation against acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition consummated in a foreign country by a citizen and resident of the United States.” Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 281 (1952), 73 S.Ct. 252, 97 L.Ed. 319 (enjoining, under Lanham Act, defendant’s assembly of counterfeit watches in Mexico that were later sold or transferred to United States where parties were American corporations); see also American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Coop. Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Dole is incorrect to state that the
holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations holding that dismissal is proper where any losses to american express were caused only because the scheme itself was exposed and thus failed holding denial of foinom non conveniens motion proper where american corporation sought to enjoin another american corporations lanham act violations in saudi arabia holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection