Your friendly Indianapolis attorney at Alerding Castor Hewitt, LLP with a brief overview (not an in-depth analysis of all of the legal issues) of some recent Seventh Circuit decisions involving internet litigation, trademark disputes, and anti-cybersquatting that could affect technology, software, and business clients maintaining websites and engaging in cyber-marketing.
Last Friday, October 1, 2010, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a suit for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Associates of Houston Metroplex, P.A. The facts are fairly straightforward. The plaintiff, an Illinois company, filed suit in Illinois claiming that the Houston-based defendant violated the federal anti-cybersquatting statute by registering a domain name similar to plaintiff’s registered trademark “Mobile Anesthesiologists.” The plaintiff argued that there was personal jurisdiction over the defendant because defendant’s website was accessible in Illinois and the defendant continued to operate its website even after receiving a cease-and-desist letter that notified defendant of the trademark.
Consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions, the Seventh Circuit concluded that these circumstances were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Something more is required, specifically an “express aiming” at the other state. In other words, some effort to exploit the market in the other state was necessary for personal jurisdiction. That express aiming was absent because it was clear from the defendant’s website that Defendant was marketing to the Houston area.
In contrast, just a few days before on September 29, 2010, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case of uBid, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc. (By the way, both opinions were authored by Judge Hamilton). That case also involved a claim under the federal anti-cybersquating statute. Even though the defendant had taken pains to keep its physical presence entirely in Arizona, it had a virtual presence that extended beyond its home state. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction because there were circumstances to demonstrate that the defendant had deliberately exploited the market in Illinois, largely due to advertising. As such, the Court concluded that there was no unfairness in requiring the defendant to defend itself in Illinois.
Though no bright lines were drawn, these two cases demonstrate that our courts are continuing to work through the legal ramifications of internet-based activity. So what’s the lesson? In our evolving world, information is just a few clicks away and anyone could reach your website. Therefore, I think it’s clear that companies eed to be mindful of their marketing efforts and give careful consideration of what information to include on their website to limit the possibility of being subjected to a lawsuit in another state. In other words, be cognizant of the places where you could be haled into court and make it clear that your efforts are tailored to your target audience/market in specific locations. While this won’t necessarily prevent a lawsuit from being filed in those other places, it can help to create circumstances to support a defense that you can’t be sued in some other state that would be inconvenient for you and your business.
Last Friday, October 1, 2010, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a suit for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Associates of Houston Metroplex, P.A. The facts are fairly straightforward. The plaintiff, an Illinois company, filed suit in Illinois claiming that the Houston-based defendant violated the federal anti-cybersquatting statute by registering a domain name similar to plaintiff’s registered trademark “Mobile Anesthesiologists.” The plaintiff argued that there was personal jurisdiction over the defendant because defendant’s website was accessible in Illinois and the defendant continued to operate its website even after receiving a cease-and-desist letter that notified defendant of the trademark.
Consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions, the Seventh Circuit concluded that these circumstances were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Something more is required, specifically an “express aiming” at the other state. In other words, some effort to exploit the market in the other state was necessary for personal jurisdiction. That express aiming was absent because it was clear from the defendant’s website that Defendant was marketing to the Houston area.
In contrast, just a few days before on September 29, 2010, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case of uBid, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc. (By the way, both opinions were authored by Judge Hamilton). That case also involved a claim under the federal anti-cybersquating statute. Even though the defendant had taken pains to keep its physical presence entirely in Arizona, it had a virtual presence that extended beyond its home state. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction because there were circumstances to demonstrate that the defendant had deliberately exploited the market in Illinois, largely due to advertising. As such, the Court concluded that there was no unfairness in requiring the defendant to defend itself in Illinois.
Though no bright lines were drawn, these two cases demonstrate that our courts are continuing to work through the legal ramifications of internet-based activity. So what’s the lesson? In our evolving world, information is just a few clicks away and anyone could reach your website. Therefore, I think it’s clear that companies eed to be mindful of their marketing efforts and give careful consideration of what information to include on their website to limit the possibility of being subjected to a lawsuit in another state. In other words, be cognizant of the places where you could be haled into court and make it clear that your efforts are tailored to your target audience/market in specific locations. While this won’t necessarily prevent a lawsuit from being filed in those other places, it can help to create circumstances to support a defense that you can’t be sued in some other state that would be inconvenient for you and your business.
Powered by Compendium
Comments for INTERNET LITIGATION – WEBSITES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION