826 F. Supp. 2d 1242
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Amazon sues for declaratory relief re: Lanham Act claims about textbook pricing/advertising.
- NACS challenged Amazon's advertising claims via NAD proceeding; NAD is a neutral forum for advertising disputes.
- NACS filed NAD complaint on March 25, 2011 alleging three Amazon claims are misleading and unsubstantiated.
- Amazon declined NAD participation and filed this federal action May 3, 2011; NAD investigation was discontinued as a result.
- NACS issued a press release criticizing Amazon’s ads the day after Amazon filed suit; Amazon seeks a declaration that its claims do not violate the Lanham Act.
- Court addresses subject matter and personal jurisdiction to resolve whether the suit may proceed in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction for declaratory relief | Amazon argues there is an actual controversy warranting declaratory relief. | NACS argues no live controversy or dismissal should occur. | Amazon's claim supports subject matter jurisdiction under MedImmune. |
| Personal jurisdiction over NACS | Amazon contends specific jurisdiction based on Calder effects test. | NACS argues lack of Washington contacts for general/specific jurisdiction. | Court exercises specific jurisdiction; denial of NACS's 12(b)(2) motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (actual controversy standard for declaratory judgment)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (effects test and forum-related actions for specific jurisdiction)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (three-prong test for specific jurisdiction; Calder effects framework)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (Calder effects test for purposeful direction in specific jurisdiction)
- Russian Standard Vodka (USA), Inc. v. Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine USA, Inc., 523 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (actual controversy and NAD context; relevance to declaratory judgments)