Bonhac World Corporation v. Mellin Works LLC
7:21-cv-09239
S.D.N.Y.Jan 20, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Bonhac World Corp., a New York corporation, has sold grip-support devices on Amazon since 2017.
- Defendant Mellin Works LLC (d/b/a Eazyhold) is a California LLC with principal place of business in Simi Valley, CA.
- In December 2020 Defendant emailed Plaintiff alleging infringement of a design and a utility patent; Plaintiff replied in September 2021 disputing the claim.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant misused patents and notified Amazon (via a DMCA-type complaint) causing Amazon to remove unspecified Bonhac product listings.
- Bonhac sued in S.D.N.Y. asserting unfair/deceptive trade practices, monopolistic contracts, common-law unfair competition, and tortious interference; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding Bonhac’s jurisdictional allegations conclusory and lacking facts showing Defendant purposefully availed itself of New York or caused injury in New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Eazyhold | Bonhac alleges Defendants "transact business in New York" and violations occurred in New York | Eazyhold lacks sufficient contacts with New York; jurisdictional allegations are conclusory | Dismissal: plaintiff failed to plausibly plead personal jurisdiction |
| General jurisdiction (CPLR § 301) | Defendant transacts business in NY (conclusory) | Defendant not domiciled or doing continuous/systematic business in NY | No general jurisdiction; plaintiff pleaded no facts of continuous/systematic NY business |
| Specific jurisdiction via business activities (CPLR § 302(a)(1)) | Defendant’s products are sold in NY (e.g., through Lowe’s/Amazon); website accessible to NY customers | Mere availability of products or a commercial website is insufficient absent targeted NY sales or purposeful availment | No § 302(a)(1) jurisdiction; no allegations of sales to NY residents or targeting of NY market |
| Specific jurisdiction via tort (CPLR § 302(a)(2) & (a)(3)) | Defendant’s alleged misuse of patents/DMCA notices caused injury to Bonhac (a NY business) | Alleged misconduct occurred online outside NY; no physical act in NY and no pleaded lost NY sales or purposeful targeting | No jurisdiction under § 302(a)(2): no physical act in NY; no § 302(a)(3): plaintiff failed to plead lost NY sales, purposeful targeting, or substantial revenue linked to the tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain enough facts to be plausible)
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (interactive-website sliding-scale test for purposeful availment)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (purposeful availment requirement for transacting business)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (§ 302(a)(2) requires defendant commit tort within NY)
- Spin Master Ltd. v. 158, 463 F. Supp. 3d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (web-based sales insufficient for jurisdiction absent purposeful targeting)
- Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 16 N.Y.3d 295 (N.Y. 2011) (injury occurs where business is lost or threatened for § 302(a)(3) analysis)
- Landoil Res. Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 28 (N.Y. 1990) (standard for general jurisdiction under CPLR § 301)