513 Ventures, LLC v. PIV Enterprises, Inc., 1:11-cv-00573

513 Ventures, LLC (Ohio) sells detox products and uses INSTANT FLUSH marks (since 2007 for services, 2010 for goods)
PIV Enterprises, Inc. (California) also sells INSTANT FLUSH products and began using the mark in 2009
Plaintiff alleges PIV’s website solicits business nationwide, including Ohio, and that PIV contacted plaintiff after a mark dispute in July 2011
Plaintiff filed suit on August 22, 2011, asserting false designation of origin under Lanham Act § 43(a)
Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim
Court grants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; failure to state a claim argument not reached or not addressed in ruling

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over PIV	Ventures asserts PIV’s website solicits Ohio business	Website alone does not establish purposeful availment; no Ohio-specific transactions	Lacks prima facie basis for PJ
Improper venue	Venue proper in this district due to acts in Ohio	No substantial events in SD Ohio tying to claim; no Ohio resident viewing site established	Venue not proper; dismissed
Failure to state a claim	Allegations adequate for Lanham Act claim	Court not required to reach due to jurisdiction/venue dismissals	Not reached / not addressed in ruling

International Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts required for PJ; due process)
Calphalon Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (requires due process and forum-state law analysis for PJ in diversity cases)
Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) (website interactivity level informs purposeful availment)
Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (three-factor framework for PJ analysis)