Edvisors Network, Inc. v. Educational Advisors, Inc.
755 F. Supp. 2d 272
D. Mass.
2010

Background

  • Edvisors Network, Inc. (Mass.) sues Educational Advisors, Inc. (Calif.) for trademark infringement, arguing edadvisors.com and the EDVISORS mark cause confusion.
  • Edvisors registered the EDVISORS mark with the PTO in 2001 and claims ongoing rights in related services nationwide.
  • Educational Advisors operates a nationwide website, edadvisors.com, which invites inquiries and free consultations, potentially reaching Massachusetts residents.
  • Defendant has no offices, assets, employees, or Massachusetts registrations, and has not conducted MA-specific direct mailings or advertising.
  • Edvisors alleges the infringement harms it in Massachusetts, where Edvisors concentrates its business.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the court may exercise specific jurisdiction. Edvisors contends defendant purposefully avails itself in MA via interactive website. Educational Advisors argues lack of MA contacts and passive website do not justify MA jurisdiction. Yes; specific jurisdiction proper.
Whether defendant's website creates sufficient minimum contacts under Zippo. Website is interactive and solicits MA inquiries, not purely passive. Site merely informative and not designed to solicit MA business. Interactive, solicitous website supports minimum contacts.
Whether exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under Gestalt factors. Massachusetts has strong interest; Edvisors is local; convenience favors MA. Defendant is far away; burden exists but not special or unusual. Reasonable; Gestalt factors favor MA.

Key Cases Cited

  • Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com., Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (corporate web activity analyzed on a sliding scale of interactivity)
  • Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional conduct causing injury in forum supports jurisdiction)
  • Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment requires deliberate in-forum activities and foreseeability)
  • Venture Tape Corp. v. McGills Glass Warehouse, 292 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Mass. 2003) (misuse of a Massachusetts firm's trademarks can satisfy minimum contacts)
  • Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., Inc., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1997) (infringing materials accessible to MA residents can support jurisdiction)
  • Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 34 (D. Mass. 1997) (website accessible to MA residents weighs in on jurisdiction)
  • N. Light Tech., Inc. v. North Lights Club, 97 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D. Mass. 2000) (relatedness and web publishing nexus to forum state)
  • Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
  • Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995) (Gestalt factors guide reasonableness analysis)
  • Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008) (relatedness and forum contacts central to jurisdiction)
  • Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998) (long-arm statute aligns with due process limits)
Read the full case