692 F.3d 469
6th Cir.2012Background
- Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. (Kentucky) sues to enforce trademark rights against out-of-state defendants using the marks COMMUNITY TRUST and COMMUNITY TRUST BANK.
- Defendants are Community Trust Financial Corp. and two wholly-owned subsidiaries (Louisiana and Texas corporations) with no Kentucky offices or employees.
- Defendants granted online-banking passwords to a small number of Kentucky residents after processing their applications.
- Plaintiff claims likelihood of confusion and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and state law; seeks cancellation of registration for COMMUNITY TRUST BANK.
- District court found personal jurisdiction; panel reverses, holding no substantial connection between in-state activity and the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personal jurisdiction satisfies due process. | Community Trust argues purposeful availment via in-state online-access actions. | Defendants contend acts were random/attenuated, not purposefully directing to Kentucky. | No; due process not satisfied; causation not sufficiently connected to Kentucky. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (three-part Mohasco test for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment as the constitutional touchstone)
- Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen. Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) (substantial connection required between in-state activity and claim)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (purposeful availment and substantial connection analysis)
- CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) (in-state activity must relate to operative facts of the dispute)