CDM Innovations, LLC v. Quality Home Decor Inc.
1:24-cv-02310
D. Colo.May 22, 2025Background
- CDM Innovations (Saludi Glassware) sued multiple defendants for alleged trademark and trade dress infringement related to glassware products.
- Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and asset freeze, alleging Defendants infringed its trademarks/trade dress and sought to restrain financial accounts linked to alleged violations.
- The original TRO motion was denied for failing to establish personal jurisdiction; Plaintiff amended the complaint with additional legal arguments but did not allege new material facts about defendants' conduct.
- Plaintiff attempted to establish jurisdiction by making purchases of the offending products itself, arguing that such purchases created contacts with Colorado.
- Court focused primarily on whether these single, plaintiff-initiated purchases constituted sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction under federal law.
- The District Court denied the TRO again, finding plaintiff's allegations insufficient to support personal jurisdiction, and ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single purchase by Plaintiff of Defendants' product establishes personal jurisdiction | Plaintiff contends even one sale to a forum resident (itself) creates jurisdiction | Defendants argue sales manufactured by plaintiff for litigation are insufficient | A single plaintiff-initiated purchase is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction |
| Whether personal jurisdiction can be based on interactive websites selling to any forum | Plaintiff asserts an interactive website targeting the forum through sales suffices | Defendants contend broad website access isn't enough without purposeful targeting | Passive website sales or listings, without direct targeting, are not sufficient contacts |
| Reliance on out-of-circuit cases stating one sale is enough for jurisdiction | Plaintiff cites district court and Ninth Circuit authority for its position | Defendants (and court) argue these are not controlling; facts distinguishable | Out-of-circuit/unreported/non-binding cases do not control, and facts differ materially |
| Whether injunctive relief (TRO) can issue absent a showing of likely personal jurisdiction | Plaintiff seeks injunction before full proof of jurisdiction | Defendants object to any relief without threshold showing of jurisdiction | TRO cannot issue without at least reasonable probability of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- XMission, L.C. v. Fluent LLC, 955 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff bears the burden to establish defendant purposefully directed activities toward the forum state)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (mere online presence and accessibility do not create jurisdiction without targeting the forum)
- Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 2017) (purposeful availment requires deliberate engagement with the forum state)
- AST Sports Science, Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction cannot rest on random, fortuitous, or unilateral actions)