May 24, 2012

The Seventh Circuit Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Internet Company

Last week, the Seventh Circuit held that a company could be subject to suit outside of its home state even if its physical presence is almost entirely limited to that home state. uBid, Inc. ("uBid") filed suit against GoDaddy Group, Inc ("GoDaddy"), alleging a cybersquatting violation for intentionally registering domain names that were confusingly similar to uBid’s trademark and domain name. The district court dismissed the case, finding that GoDaddy was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that despite GoDaddy’s wholly physical presence in Arizona, "its virtual presence cannot be ignored," and that Illinois did have personal jurisdiction over GoDaddy.

The Seventh Circuit determined that GoDaddy did not meet the "demanding standard" of general jurisdiction because its contact in Illinois was limited to the marketing and sale of registration for Internet domain names, and "it would be unfair to require GoDaddy to answer in Illinois for any conceivable claim that any conceivable plaintiff might have against it," as allowed under general jurisdiction.

However, the Court did find that GoDaddy was subject to specific personal jurisdiction because its contacts and activities in Illinois were sufficiently related to the claim against it. The Court looked to GoDaddy’s extensive national advertising and its significant national sales. The Court suggested it was irrelevant that there were no Illinois-specific contacts because GoDaddy’s activities "successfully reached Illinois consumers, who have flocked to GoDaddy by the hundreds of thousands and have sent many millions of dollars to the company each year." The Court further noted that GoDaddy had in fact placed physical ads in Illinois venues, and its marketing campaign has created substantial Illinois business for GoDaddy.

The Court reasoned that "the contacts alleged in uBID’s complaint and the wrongs alleged in uBID’s complaint are so intimately related that GoDaddy cannot reasonably have been surprised to find itself sued in Illinois." The Court held that “due process is not violated when a defendant is called to account for the alleged consequence of its deliberate exploitation of the market in the forum state."

The Seventh Circuit’s decision has implications for any business that markets itself through a website – in other words, the majority of businesses in today’s global economy. The GoDaddy decision is another in a recent string of cases, see, e.g., the Second Circuit’s decision in Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, in which the court supported the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state business based, in part, on the company’s use of the Internet and its boundless access to potential markets.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Amy Vandamme is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Groups. Ms. Vandamme specializes in intellectual property litigation, with a special concentration on trademark enforcement and infringement cases. Ms. Vandamme has extensive experience litigating cases involving claims of trademark and trade dress infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, domain name infringement and false advertising. Ms. Vandamme has handled trademark matters in federal courts across the country and has also represented clients in trademark...

414.225.2753

About the Author

Attorney

Melissa Burkland is an attorney in the Milwaukee Office and is a member of the Litigation Practice Group. Ms. Burkland has worked on a wide variety of complex civil litigation and appellate matters in the areas of commercial litigation, trademark and patent-related litigation in state and federal courts

414-225-2767

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.