Clockwork IP, LLC v. Clearview Plumbing & Heating Ltd., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1020

Plaintiffs Clockwork IP, AirTime, and Aquila sue Canadian defendants Clearview Plumbing & Heating and Giraffe for trademark infringement, unfair competition, conversion, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference arising from SGI-related activities.
Clockwork is a Delaware LLC with HQ in Sarasota, Florida; AirTime is a Missouri LLC with HQ in Sarasota; Aquila (SGI) is an Illinois LLC with HQ in Sarasota; SGI operates as an affinity-group system for contractors.
Clearview and Giraffe are Canadian entities; Clearview formerly part of SGI Canada (Mar. 2011–May 2013) and licensed Clockwork marks in Canada; licensing agreements in 2011 related to AirTime marks WE FIX IT OR IT’S FREE and GREEN SCREENED; the TECH SEAL license was not executed.
Plaintiffs allege Clearview misappropriated CLOCKWORK marks and targeted their Tech Seal Program; alleged actions occurred through SGI channels and licensing arrangements.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); Plaintiffs contend effects and minimum contacts support jurisdiction.
Court analyzes long-arm and due process, finding no sufficient minimum contacts or general jurisdiction; Rule 4(k)(2) relief not shown; alter-ego theory rejected; jurisdictional discovery denied; motion to dismiss granted without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Missouri can exercise personal jurisdiction over Clearview.	Plaintiffs claim extraterritorial acts targeted Missouri.	Defendants lacked contacts in Missouri and did not purposefully avail themselves here.	No specific jurisdiction; minimum contacts not shown.
Whether Missouri has general jurisdiction over Clearview.	Extensive United States contacts render Clearview at home in Missouri.	Contacts are not continuous/systematic; insufficient for general jurisdiction.	No general jurisdiction.
Whether Rule 4(k)(2) federal long-arm applies.	Contacts with SGI/US entities suffice under 4(k)(2).	Insufficient US-wide contacts to justify jurisdiction.	Rule 4(k)(2) not satisfied.
Whether Giraffe can be hauled in as alter ego of Clearview.	Giraffe owned/licensed by Clearview; alter ego jurisdiction.	No jurisdiction over Clearview; alter-ego theory fails.	Alter-ego theory rejected since Clearview not subject to jurisdiction.
Whether jurisdictional discovery should be granted.	Discovery could reveal additional Missouri contacts and alter ego.	Prima facie case of jurisdiction lacking; discovery not warranted.	Denied; jurisdictional discovery not appropriate.

K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (requirements for a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; testing with affidavits)
Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. v. Bassett & Walker Intern., Inc., 702 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2012) (five-factor test for minimum contacts and jurisdictional analysis)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum contacts and due process standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness in jurisdiction)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (illustrates limitations of jurisdiction without sufficient contacts)
Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (five-factor test for minimum contacts and scope of contacts)
N.C.C. Motorsports, Inc. v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 993 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (extraterritorial acts producing in-forum consequences insufficient alone)
Peabody Holding Co. Inc. v. Costain Group PLC, 808 F. Supp. 1425 (E.D. Mo. 1992) (Calder effects test requires targeted acts with in-forum consequences)
Angelica Corp. v. Gallery Mfg. Corp., 904 F. Supp. 993 (E.D. Mo. 1995) (solicitation/contracting contacts can indicate targeting Missouri)
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (interactive websites; level of interactivity matters for jurisdiction)