Guides · Trademark Litigation

Where Trademark Cases Are Heard

Unlike patent and copyright claims, federal trademark claims can be heard in state court as well as federal court.

Published October 21, 2026 · Last reviewed October 21, 2026Law checked through October 21, 2026

In Short

Most Texas trademark suits are still filed in federal court, where the Lanham Act claims, Texas claims, and requests for emergency relief can be heard together. The Texas Business Court is a newer option for large disputes that relate to the ownership, use, or licensing of intellectual property. Wherever a case is filed, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which can be the hardest question when the defendant sells online from another state.

Common situations.

A Dallas company wants to sue a California business that sells an infringing product through its website and national retailers.
A defendant sued in Texas state court asks whether it can move the case to federal court.
A recipient of a demand letter sues first in its home district, and the brand owner files in another district a week later.
A trademark license dispute worth more than $5 million is pending in a Texas district court.

The forums.

Forum	What it can hear	Notes
Federal district court	Lanham Act claims (15 U.S.C. § 1121; 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)), related Texas unfair competition claims (§ 1338(b)), and other Texas claims (§ 1367)	The usual forum. Appeals go to the Fifth Circuit
Texas district court	Lanham Act claims, which state courts may also hear, and Texas claims under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 16 and the common law	A defendant may usually remove a case with a federal claim to federal court (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441)
Texas Business Court	Actions arising out of or relating to the ownership, use, licensing, lease, installation, or performance of intellectual property, if more than $5 million is in controversy (Tex. Gov't Code § 25A.004(d)(4))	Concurrent with district courts. Appeals go to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (§ 25A.007(a))
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board	Registration only	See TTAB Oppositions and Cancellations
International Trade Commission	Imports that infringe a registered or common-law mark or trade dress (19 U.S.C. § 1337)	Exclusion orders, not damages
Arbitration	Disputes covered by an arbitration clause, often in licenses and coexistence agreements	The contract controls

The Texas Business Court.

Since September 1, 2025, the Business Court has had concurrent jurisdiction over actions "arising out of or relating to the ownership, use, licensing, lease, installation, or performance of intellectual property," including software, data, life-science technology, and trade secrets, where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, not counting interest, statutory and exemplary damages, penalties, fees, and costs (Tex. Gov't Code § 25A.004(d)(4)). A separate clause covers actions under the Texas trade secrets act (§ 25A.004(d)(5)).

Reach. The Business Court has read "relating to" broadly, holding that a suit over the misuse of confidential business information fell within the clause even without a trade secret claim (Alamo Title Co. v. WFG Nat'l Title Co. of Tex., LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 6 (4th Div. Feb. 3, 2026)). The statute's list of examples does not exclude trademarks, but this update found no published Business Court decision applying the clause to a trademark infringement claim.
More likely fits. Trademark license and royalty disputes, disputes over who owns a mark after a business breakup or sale, and cases where trademark claims accompany trade secret or contract claims.
Removal. A party may remove a qualifying case from district court to the Business Court, generally within 30 days after it was served or discovered the facts establishing jurisdiction (§ 25A.006(f)).
Limits. Related claims outside the court's listed categories proceed in the Business Court only if all parties to those claims and the judge agree (§ 25A.004(f)).

Personal jurisdiction over out-of-state sellers.

A Texas court may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant to the limits of due process (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042). For a defendant not at home in Texas, the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's own contacts with Texas (Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021)).

A website alone is not enough. A website that can be viewed in Texas, but does not target Texas, does not create jurisdiction (Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314 (5th Cir. 2021)).
Sales into the forum matter. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims against a Wisconsin company whose products were sold through its own site and national retailers, because it had not sold or shipped any accused product into the forum state (Admar Int'l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C., 18 F.4th 783 (5th Cir. 2021)).
Practical evidence. Records of sales and shipments to Texas buyers, Texas-targeted advertising, and Texas distributors often decide the question.
Foreign sellers. A foreign defendant with enough contacts with the United States as a whole, but not with any one state, may be sued on a federal claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). See Counterfeits and Online Marketplaces.

Venue and transfer in federal court.

Venue. Unlike patent cases, trademark cases follow the general venue statute: where any defendant resides, if all reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events occurred (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)). A company resides wherever it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the case (§ 1391(c)(2)), and a foreign defendant may be sued in any district (§ 1391(c)(3)).
Transfer. A court may transfer a case for convenience, but only if the movant clearly shows that the new venue is clearly more convenient (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Court congestion alone is not enough to justify a transfer (In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. 2024)).
The race to the courthouse. When related cases are pending in two federal courts, the court where the second case was filed may defer to the first if the issues substantially overlap (Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999)). A court may also decline to hear a declaratory judgment suit filed in anticipation of the other side's lawsuit (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes Cnty., 343 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2003)).

Texas state courts.

Venue in a Texas district court generally lies in the county where all or a substantial part of the events occurred, or where the defendant resides or has its principal office (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.002). A suit to cancel a Texas state trademark registration must be brought in a district court of Travis County (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 16.106(a)). Temporary injunction practice in state court differs from federal practice. See Emergency Relief: TROs and Temporary Injunctions, in the trade secret section.

The International Trade Commission.

The Commission can bar imports that infringe a registered trademark if an industry in the United States relating to the protected goods exists or is being established (19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)). For common-law marks and trade dress, the complainant must also show injury to a domestic industry (§ 1337(a)(1)(A)). The Commission can issue exclusion orders, including general exclusion orders against all infringing imports, and cease and desist orders, but not damages. Its orders are subject to a 60-day presidential review period (§ 1337(j)), and appeals go to the Federal Circuit.

Sources.

15 U.S.C. § 1121.
19 U.S.C. § 1337.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, 1391, 1404(a), 1441.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 15.002, 17.042; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 16.106.
Tex. Gov't Code §§ 25A.004(d)(4)-(5), (f), 25A.006(f), 25A.007(a); H.B. 40, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (enrolled).
Alamo Title Co. v. WFG Nat'l Title Co. of Tex., LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 6 (4th Div. Feb. 3, 2026).
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021).
Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314 (5th Cir. 2021).
Admar Int'l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C., 18 F.4th 783 (5th Cir. 2021).
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. 2024).
Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999).
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes Cnty., 343 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2003).

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Law checked through October 21, 2026. See the Disclaimer.