Courts have established three categories of Internet contacts. The first type of contact is when the defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into a contract with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involves the transfer of information over the Internet. The court has usually found personal jurisdiction to exist when there is a contract between the parties via the Internet. The second type of contact occurs when a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs over the Internet. The third type of contact involves the posting of information on a Web site that is available to users in foreign jurisdictions. Passive Web site owners are less likely to be hailed into foreign jurisdictions. Courts have generally agreed that owning passive Web sites does not meet he minimum contacts test.

CompuServe v. Pattterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996).

Courts have generally found personal jurisdiction exists in cases where the defendant's Web sites are clearly doing business within a forum state. The Sixth Circuit held that jurisdiction was proper against a defendant whose only contact with the forum state was via the Internet. ``The defendant being a Texas resident entered into a contract with an Ohio business that provided Internet services. The defendant sold software electronically to Ohio residents via the Internet through a written contract with CompuServe. The defendant entered into a written contract with CompuServe that stated the agreement was entered into and governed by Ohio law, defendant also used CompuServe to advertise, market and distribute his product. Defendant derived benefits from the marketing relationships, whereby income flowed through CompuServe to the defendant. Finally, defendant by sending an email to the CompuServe helped initiate the suit. The Court held that the defendant purposefully availed himself to the laws of the Ohio and the cause of action arose out of the defendant's contacts with Ohio. The Court also held that it was reasonable to exercise jurisdiction over the Texas defendant. The Court however, did not find a broad right of jurisdiction. The court limited its decision to the contacts held by the defendant and did not address whether a third party from another state would be able to sue defendant in Ohio for any defects in his software. The Court also did not address whether CompuServe could sue any regular subscriber for nonpayment in Ohio. The Court also did not answer whether the defendant would have been subject to personal jurisdiction in any state in which his software was used or purchased.

Hall v. LaRonde, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).

A California court held that New York defendant's email to a California resident subjects the defendant to personal jurisdiction in California, even though defendant was not physically there. Plaintiff had entered into a contract with a New York resident that would license the plaintiff's software to the public and forward royalties to the plaintiff. The parties negotiated the deal through email and telephone. The Court found that plaintiff's claims arose from the result of defendant's activities. Jurisdiction was found reasonable because the defendant's activities had a substantial enough connection to California. The Court held that because communication has advanced to the point where presence is not required and yet an enormous number of transactions may take place, personal jurisdiction is allowable where there is a contract between the parties.

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

A jazz club in New York sued a same named club in Missouri for trademark infringement. The Court held that a mere passive web site was not enough to establish jurisdiction in New York. A passive web site that makes information available to those who are interested in it, are not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. The Second Circuit found that the Missouri defendant did not commit a tortious act in New York. The suit arose from the fact that both parties used the same name for their club and in doing so King claimed Bensusuan infringed his trademark. The Web site was created in Missouri and also contained a hyperlink to the King Web site. The Court concluded by determining that the New York long arm statute does not reach the defendant and that the hyperlink to the plaintiff's Web site is insufficient to constitute personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9^th Cir. 1997).

In this case the plaintiff an Arizona corporation that advertises for commercial services over the Internet brought suit against a Florida corporation that offers Web page construction services over the Internet. Plaintiff sued defendant for trademark infringement and brought suit in Arizona. Plaintiff claimed that jurisdiction should be granted because defendant solicited email communication and had a telephone number listed over the Web site. The Ninth Circuit applied the minimum contacts test and found that the contacts were insufficient with the forum state to grant jurisdiction. The Court found the defendant's Web site to be a passive one and determined that the defendant's activities over the Internet were insufficient to establish purposeful availment. The Court concluded by stating that that there must be more than a mere presence of Web site by a defendant.

Barrett v. The Catacombs Press, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21772 (E.D. Pa. 1999). [ed. Lexis cite is correct, although proper year is 1999]

Plaintiff a Pennsylvania resident brought suit against defendants for defamation. Defendant Darlene Sherrell moved to dismiss on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court did not find jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court reasoned that the Defendant's Web site is passive and is only informational in context. The nature and quality of the contacts made by the Defendant were accessible around the world and never targeted or solicited to Pennsylvania residents. The Defamatory statements against Plaintiff were not made to attach him in his capacity as a Pennsylvania psychiatrist nor did the statements intend to target Internet users in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff and Defendant also corresponded through e-mail, which the Court held does not amount to purposeful availment. Plaintiff also argued that the court can exercise jurisdiction over the Defendant under the effects test set by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The test is what the extent to which Defendant's tortious activities is aimed at or has effect in the forum state. The Court did not find jurisdiction based on the effects test because the Defendant's activities were not expressly aimed at Pennsylvania.

Mid City Bowling Lanes v. Ivercrest Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1630 (E. D. La. 1999).

The Court found neither specific jurisdiction nor general jurisdiction existed based just on a web site that Louisiana users would be able to access. The Court concluded that Ivercrest's Web site was a passive one and that not enough contacts with the Louisiana existed to grant personal jurisdiction. Ivercrest's had used the trademark registered by Mid City Bowling and agreed to remove the trademark from their Web site. Mid City brought suit when Ivercrest had not removed the trademark. Ivercrest is an Illinois resident who had used Mid City's trademark concerning a slogan for bowling. The Court found that Ivercrest's Web site was only an advertisement and did not solicit Louisiana residents to bowl in Illinois. Internet users could not purchase any items nor could they communicate directly with employees of Ivercrest. The Court held that the minimum contacts test was not satisfied and Louisiana's long arm statutes did not reach the defendant.

Origin Instruments Corp. v. Adaptive Computer Systems, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1451 ( N.D. Tex. 1999).

Plaintiff, Origin Instruments a Texas corporation brought suit against Adaptive Computer Systems an Iowa Corporation. Both companies make similar computer equipment for handicapped individuals. Defendant sells and advertises its products on its Web site. Customers may communicate with the Defendant through the Web site as well as purchase the software allowing them to download the materials from the Web. The Court found the Defendant's Web site to be interactive. The Court found no evidence to establish that the Defendant has been interacting with anyone in Texas through its Web site. The potential use by Texas residents does not warrant personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. The Court concluded Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction.

Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D.C. Ore. 1999).

Plaintiff Music Millennium a Oregon corporation brought a trademark infringement suit against Millennium Music, a South Carolina corporation. The Defendant did not purposefully enter into contracts with Oregon residents through the Internet, nor did the Defendants exchange files with forum residents to create repeated or ongoing obligations. The Defendants did not conduct business in Oregon over the Internet. The Court determined that the Defendant's Web site falls into the second category that the Zippo case defined. Interactive Web sites where to find jurisdiction an inquiry into the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange of information. The Plaintiff argued that the defendants' Web site solicits potential Oregon customers, therefore establishes purposeful availment. This Court refined the Zippo description of the middle category to include "deliberate action" by a defendant within the forum state. Defendant did not intentionally or purposefully target its activities in Oregon. The Court concluded that the Defendant must "purposefully direct its activities at or take deliberate action in or create substantial connection with the forum state so as to provide fair warning that such activities may subject defendant to jurisdiction in a distant forum." See id at 922. The Court also held that contacts unrelated to the plaintiff's claim is not proper to assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court also noted that personal jurisdiction will not be found if there is "nothing more than the foreseeability or potentiality of commercial activity with the forum state." See id at 923. Jurisdiction was not found.

Desktop Technologies, Inc. v. Colorworks Reproduction & Desgin, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1934 (E.D. PA. 1999)

Plaintiff Desktop Technologies alleged trademark infringement and state law unfair competition against Colorworks. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Desktop is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada with its principal place of business in Vancouver. Defendant has not transacted any business, provided any services, earned any income or entered into any contracts in Pennsylvania. Defendant operates a Web site on the Internet with the domain name of "colorworks" which is registered in the United States. The Web site is accessible to all Internet users, including those in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of the word "Colorworks" as its domain name on the Internet infringes Plaintiff's trademark rights and allows Defendant to compete unfairly with Plaintiff in the United States. The Court first analyzed whether the there is general personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. The Court concluded that because an advertisement does not itself provide a basis for jurisdiction when the Defendant owns a passive Web site. The Web site was considered passive because email link is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The Court then analyzed whether specific personal jurisdiction exists over the Defendant.

Because the parties agreed that Defendant's business is carried out only in British Columbia the only issue was whether Defendant's domain name infringes Plaintiff's trademark rights in Pennsylvania. "Simply registering someone else's trademark as a domain name and posting a web site on the Internet is not sufficient to subject a party domiciled in one state to jurisdiction in another... There must be "something more" to demonstrate that the defendant directed his activity towards the forum state." Desktop Technologies, Inc. v. Colorworks Reproduction & Desgin, Inc. ( 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1934, 11). The Court held that the level of interactivity was insufficient to justify exercising specific personal jurisdiction.

Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F.Supp. 161 (D.Conn. 1996)

Plaintiff, a Connecticut resident sued a Massachusetts defendant for infringing Inset System's registered trademark. A federal court in Connecticut found that advertising in the state via the Internet was sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. The defendant did not conduct business in Connecticut nor did it have any offices or employees however it used inset.com as its domain name and used a toll free number. The court held that the defendant purposefully availed itself in Connecticut by directing its advertising activities. The Court relied on statistics that support the assertion that the advertisements can reach over 10,000 Internet users in Connecticut. The Court partly found jurisdiction based on the potential of residents than can access the site.

Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F.Supp.1328, (E.D. Mo. 1996)

The defendant' web site was a promotion for its upcoming Internet service. The service consisted of assigning users an electronic mailbox and then forwarding advertisements for products and services that matched the users' interests to those mailboxes. The defendant planned to charge advertisers and provide users with incentives to view the advertisement. The Court rejected the defendant's assertion that it operated a passive web site, the Court reasoned that the defendant actively solicited information. The Court held that the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by evaluating the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site. 131 Missouri residents had accessed the defendant's Web site. The Court held that jurisdiction was reasonable.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F.Supp. 1032 (S.D. Ind. 1997)

The prohibition of the sale or distribution of a magazine within the United States extends to sale or distribution via the Internet. Playboy filed suit for contempt against Tattilo Editrice for using the name playmen in connection with publications it sold in the United States. Defendant is an Italian publisher who had a permanent injunction entered against them, but continued violating the order. In 1996, Defendant began offering pictures form its publications over the its Internet Web site with the server being located in Italy. The site was accessible to U.S. users with a subscribers receiving special passwords to access parts of the Web site. The Court held that the defendant's distribution of images through their intentional and deliberate contact with the U.S. and by invitation to U.S. users to download pictures stored on its computer in Italy amounted to distribution.

Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)

A Pennsylvania Federal Court held that jurisdiction was proper in a trademark suit brought by a the manufacturer of Zippo lighters against a California based Internet new service which used the domain name zippo.com. The defendant had no contact with Pennsylvania other than advertising on the Internet, which was accessible to state residents. The Court held that the defendant was conducting electronic commerce within the state. The Court used a sliding scale approach in determining jurisdiction based on Internet contacts with the forum state. The Court justified its reason for finding jurisdiction by pointing out that Dot Com sold 3000 passwords to subscribers in Pennsylvania and entered into contracts with Internet access providers to furnish its services to their customers in Pennsylvania. Dot Com argued that it did not solicit business from the Pennsylvania residents but instead the residents initiated the contracts when visiting their Web site. The Court disagreed and found Dot Com availed itself to the laws of Pennsylvania and the cause of action arose out of the activities conducted by Dot Com. The Court also found it reasonable to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. Th Court stated three types of situations where internet jurisdiction is at question, those defendants that clearly do business with residents of the jurisdiction, those defendants who maintain only passive web information that residents can access and those defendants who allow residents to exchange information with the host computer.

Mieczkowski v. Masco Corp., 1998 WL 125678 (E.D. Tex. 1998)

The Court held that mere foreseeability that one's product might enter a particular state's stream of commerce is enough for personal jurisdiction. Using the test created by the Zippo Court, the Texas Court found that an interactive Web site with other ties to the forum state is enough to grant personal jurisdiction or general jurisdiction. Defendant's Web site allowed customers to view items to purchase, check the status of their purchases and communicate with sales representatives. The defendant shipped goods to Texas and profited from Texas residents. The Court found defendant had systematic and continuous contact with Texas. General jurisdiction existed based on defendant's Internet and non-Internet contacts.

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)

The Court granted jurisdiction over a nonresident who had emailed the forum state, as well as solicit funds, phoned and mailed residents of the forum state and have traveled to the area. Plaintiff sued defendant over defamatory remarks made over the Internet. Plaintiff brought suit in the District of Columbia. Defendant argued that because he was located in California where the computer server was located and should not be subject to the D.C. jurisdiction. However, the Court pointed out that defendant had subscribers in the D.C. area as well had traveled there and solicited information from the area for his reports. He had sent numerous emails to the forum as well as had profited from the users in the area. Court held that defendant had purposefully availed himself to the District of Columbia.

Links of Interest