Charles Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC
949 F.3d 385
7th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Charles Curry, founder/CEO of Get Diesel Nutrition and user of the mark "Diesel" (including product Diesel Test), sued Revolution Laboratories, Rev Labs Management, and Joshua and Barry Nussbaum for trademark infringement, dilution, false advertising, cybersquatting, and related state-law consumer claims.
- Defendants began selling a competing product, "Diesel Test Red Series," online in October 2016 with packaging and branding similar to Curry’s; they ran internet-based marketing (including a fabricated ESPN-style article) and obtained over $1.6 million in sales; at least 767 sales were to Illinois residents.
- Curry demanded cessation; defendants filed a trademark application for Diesel Test (signed by Joshua Nussbaum) after receiving Curry’s demand; USPTO suspended examination due to likelihood of confusion.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted the motion (finding no general or specific jurisdiction) and dismissed the case; it did not resolve veil-piercing or fiduciary-shield theories because it found Revolution’s contacts insufficient.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed as to Revolution (finding specific jurisdiction proper based on purposeful online sales and 767 Illinois shipments of the accused product), vacated dismissal as to the other defendants, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Curry's Argument | Revolution's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Revolution | Revolution purposefully directed commerce to Illinois by operating an interactive website, shipping Diesel Test to Illinois residents, and sending order confirmations; those contacts relate to Curry’s trademark claims | Revolution had no physical presence in Illinois, few Illinois sales (1.8% of revenue), and did not specifically target Illinois | Held: Specific jurisdiction over Revolution exists; its online sales to Illinois residents involving the allegedly infringing product connect the forum to the controversy |
| Whether the defendant’s contacts are sufficiently related to Curry’s claims (suit-relatedness) | Sales of the accused Diesel Test in Illinois are the conduct that caused the claimed confusion and thus are directly related | Sales alone (or emails) unconnected to the asserted infringement are insufficient | Held: Contacts are suit-related because the Illinois sales involved the allegedly infringing Diesel Test and thus gave rise to the claims |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice | Illinois has a strong interest in adjudicating harms to its residents; defendants can fairly defend in Illinois given their nationwide online business model | Defending in Illinois would be burdensome given absence of physical presence | Held: Fairness factors do not defeat jurisdiction; defendant’s nationwide online business and purposeful sales to Illinois make litigation there reasonable |
| Whether district court’s dismissal as to other defendants (management and Nussbaums) should stand | Curry urged veil-piercing/fiduciary-shield/individual jurisdiction theories based on corporate control and the trademark filing | Defendants argued Revolution’s contacts alone are insufficient so subsidiary theories need not be reached | Held: Appellate court vacated dismissals as to the other defendants and remanded so lower court can address those theories in light of Revolution’s established jurisdictional contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts/specific and general jurisdiction framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability in commercial relationships)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (limits on jurisdiction for fortuitous contacts; due-process functions)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (contacts must connect defendant to the forum, not just plaintiff’s residence)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test where defendant’s intentional tort was expressly aimed at the forum)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (nationwide circulation can support jurisdiction where substantial distribution occurs in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (constraints on general jurisdiction over corporations)
- Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.) (online sales through interactive websites can establish purposeful availment)
- uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir.) (prima facie standard on jurisdictional dismissal without evidentiary hearing)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys. v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir.) (sales to forum residents must be tied to the allegedly tortious conduct to support jurisdiction)
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff’s burden and effect of evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional showing)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.) (Illinois long-arm statute interpreted to reach full extent of federal due-process limits)