Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.
a. Issue: whether the allegedly infringing use of a service mark in a home page on the web suffices for personal jurisdiction in the state where the holder of the mark has its principal place of business.
b. Facts: Cybersell Arizona (CAZ) was known as one of the first spamming companies on the internet. Cybersell Florida (CFL) was created to provide business consulting services for management and marketing on the web.
c. Procedural History: CFL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Motion granted. CAZ appealed.
d. Rule: 3 part test to determine whether a district court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant:
i. D must do some act of consummate some transaction w/ the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum; thereby invoking the benefits and protections
ii. The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the D’s forum-related activities; and
iii. Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable
e. Rule: courts that have addressed interactive sites have looked to the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of info that occurs on the site to determine if sufficient contacts exist to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.
f. Reason: no court has ever held that an internet advertisement alone is sufficient to subject the advertiser to jurisdiction in the P's home state. There must be something more, and here that something more doesn't exist.
g. Rule: the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the net.
h. Reason: All that CFL did was post an essentially passive home page on the web, using the name “CyberSell.†While there is no question that anyone, anywhere could access the home page and thereby learn about the services offered, we cannot see how from that fact alone it can be inferred that CFL deliberately directed its merchandising efforts toward AZ residents.
i. Held: instead of applying minimal contacts analysis, it would not comport w/ traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. No contacts w/ AZ other than maintaining the homepage occurred. CFL’s contacts are insufficient to establish “purposeful availment.â€
a. Issue: whether the allegedly infringing use of a service mark in a home page on the web suffices for personal jurisdiction in the state where the holder of the mark has its principal place of business.
b. Facts: Cybersell Arizona (CAZ) was known as one of the first spamming companies on the internet. Cybersell Florida (CFL) was created to provide business consulting services for management and marketing on the web.
c. Procedural History: CFL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Motion granted. CAZ appealed.
d. Rule: 3 part test to determine whether a district court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant:
i. D must do some act of consummate some transaction w/ the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum; thereby invoking the benefits and protections
ii. The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the D’s forum-related activities; and
iii. Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable
e. Rule: courts that have addressed interactive sites have looked to the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of info that occurs on the site to determine if sufficient contacts exist to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.
f. Reason: no court has ever held that an internet advertisement alone is sufficient to subject the advertiser to jurisdiction in the P's home state. There must be something more, and here that something more doesn't exist.
g. Rule: the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the net.
h. Reason: All that CFL did was post an essentially passive home page on the web, using the name “CyberSell.†While there is no question that anyone, anywhere could access the home page and thereby learn about the services offered, we cannot see how from that fact alone it can be inferred that CFL deliberately directed its merchandising efforts toward AZ residents.
i. Held: instead of applying minimal contacts analysis, it would not comport w/ traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. No contacts w/ AZ other than maintaining the homepage occurred. CFL’s contacts are insufficient to establish “purposeful availment.â€