Be2 LLC v. Ivanov
642 F.3d 555
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Be2 LLC and Be2 Holding sue Ivanov for trademark-related claims arising from Be2.net activity.
- District court entered default against Ivanov and later a default judgment after he failed to answer or appear.
- Be2 submitted Internet printouts (Be2.net and Sladurana with Be2.net logo) suggesting Ivanov’s role in management and marketing.
- Ivanov affidavits deny being Be2.net CEO and claim no Illinois contacts; district court finds him not credible.
- On appeal, Ivanov challenges personal jurisdiction; issue is whether Illinois may exercise in personam jurisdiction.
- Seventh Circuit reverses, holds no minimum contacts with Illinois; remands with direction to vacate judgment and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois may exercise personal jurisdiction over Ivanov. | Be2 argues Ivanov targeted Illinois via Be2.net and related sites. | Ivanov contends he lacks Illinois contacts and did not purposefully avail himself of Illinois market. | No, Illinois court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Ivanov. |
| Whether the postjudgment motion challenging jurisdiction should be sustained. | Be2 contends district court properly denied motion to vacate under Rule 60(b). | Ivanov argues lack of jurisdiction voids the judgment and contestation should be granted. | Judgment vacatur and dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction required. |
| What is the governing standard for specific personal jurisdiction in online contexts? | Be2 relies on targeted Illinois contact through online activity. | Ivanov asserts absence of purposeful targeting or exploitation of Illinois market. | Absence of targeting/exploitation; website access alone insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 1945) (minimum contacts required for due process)
- uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir., 2010) (advertising in forum supports jurisdiction when targeting forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1985) (purposeful availment and fair play concerns)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir., 2010) (website access in forum not enough without targeting)
- Relational, LLC v. Hodges, 627 F.3d 668 (7th Cir., 2010) (Rule 60(b)(4) abuse of discretion standard for void judgments)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir., 2010) (specific jurisdiction framework for Internet-related claims)