A Corp. v. All American Plumbing, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1303
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- A Corp., a Massachusetts franchisor owning federal registrations for the "Rooter Man" marks, sued Arizona-based All American Plumbing for trademark infringement and related claims, alleging All American used the mark on its website accessible in Massachusetts.
- All American is domiciled and operates solely in Arizona, is licensed only in Arizona, has never done business in Massachusetts, and its website lists contact info for three Arizona locations but does not target Massachusetts.
- All American moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted the motion, finding no general or specific jurisdiction and characterizing the website as passive (not interactive).
- A Corp. appealed, challenging only the denial of specific jurisdiction based on All American’s website accessibility and alleged injury to A Corp. in Massachusetts.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo under the prima facie standard, accepting A Corp.’s properly supported allegations and also considering uncontested facts presented by All American.
- The court analyzed specific jurisdiction under the three-prong due process test (relatedness, purposeful availment, reasonableness) and affirmed dismissal for lack of specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massachusetts courts have specific jurisdiction over All American for trademark infringement | A Corp.: All American’s website is interactive/accessible in Massachusetts and caused injury to A Corp. there, so jurisdiction exists under Mass. long-arm and due process | All American: Operates only in Arizona; website is passive and does not target Massachusetts; no purposeful availment or related contacts | No. Relatedness and purposeful availment not met; passive website insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction |
| Whether injury in Massachusetts (plaintiff’s residence) from out-of-state conduct establishes relatedness | A Corp.: Injury to Massachusetts trademark owner links the claim to the forum | All American: Any direct injury is in Arizona (to its Arizona franchisee); Massachusetts effects are incidental and too attenuated | No. Indirect, downstream effects in Massachusetts insufficient to satisfy the relatedness prong |
| Whether targeting a forum plaintiff (forum company) suffices for purposeful availment in trademark cases | A Corp.: Alleged infringement targeted a Massachusetts company, so foreseeability supports jurisdiction (relying on Calder/Venture Tape) | All American: Mere accessibility of a passive website and ownership of mark by a forum plaintiff do not show intentional connection to forum; no sales or services offered there | No. Mere availability of a passive website and targeting a forum plaintiff, without other forum-directed conduct, does not establish purposeful availment |
| Whether reasonableness factors overcome weak contacts | A Corp.: Forum’s interest and plaintiff’s convenience favor exercising jurisdiction | All American: Burden on defendant and lack of meaningful forum contacts weigh against jurisdiction | Not reached in depth—the first two prongs fail, so reasonableness not enough to save jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts/due process standard for jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test; purposeful direction toward forum may support jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (plaintiff-centered effects insufficient; defendant's forum connections required)
- Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, 290 F.3d 42 (First Circuit framework on long-arm and jurisdictional analysis)
- Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22 (prima facie standard for reviewing jurisdictional facts)
- Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25 (internet presence alone does not create jurisdiction given websites' omnipresence)