A.W.L.I. Group, Inc. v. Amber Freight Shipping Lines
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142290
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- AWLI sues AFSL for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices.
- AWLI is a NY corporation with its office and principal place of business in Jamaica, Queens; AFSL is a California corporation with office in Los Angeles.
- AWLI owns AMBER, AMBER WORLDWIDE, and AMBER FREIGHT marks registered with the PTO; AFSL uses AMBER FREIGHT for similar freight services.
- Plaintiff alleges AFSL’s website www.amberjriegkt.com facilitates infringing activity; Plaintiff asserts AFSL transacts business in this district and derives revenue from interstate commerce.
- AFSL has no NY officers, employees, property, bank accounts, or agents; AFSL operates www.amberfreight.com from outside NY and claims no NY customers; AFSL asserts it derives no NY revenue and has no NY presence.
- Court grants AFSL’s 12(b)(2) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction and denies jurisdictional discovery; case dismissed and closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction under CPLR 301 | AWLI contends AFSL’s NY activities show general presence | AFSL lacks NY office, employees, property, or continuous business in NY | No general jurisdiction under CPLR 301 |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) | AFSL’s website admissions and NY-related activities show transacting business | Website is broad advertising, not targeted or transactional; no NY customers | No specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) | Website infringing mark could constitute tort committed in NY | Infringement occurred where server is located (California); not NY | No jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3) | Plaintiff alleges in-state injury and potential NY consequences from AFSL’s conduct | No regular NY soliciting, revenue, or targeted conduct; foreseeability alone insufficient | No jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Penguin Grp. (USA), Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (establishing prima facie showing for jurisdiction via 12(b)(2))
- Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (burden to show personal jurisdiction on motion to dismiss)
- DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., 286 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2001) (use of outside pleadings/affidavits in jurisdiction analysis)
- Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (two-step analysis for long-arm jurisdiction; prima facie standard)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (single act statute; one transaction can suffice for § 302(a)(1))
- Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald, 362 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2004) (Lanham Act claims can support § 302(a)(1) jurisdiction when connected to activities in NY)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (purposeful availment and website transacts business analysis under § 302(a)(1))
- CutCo Indus. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361 (2d Cir. 1986) (framework for analyzing transacting business via websites)
- Hsin Ten Enter. USA, Inc., 138 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (internet presence and NY presence factors for jurisdiction)
- CitiGroup, Inc. v. City Holding Co., 97 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (interactivity of website relevant to 302(a)(1) analysis)