Exact Marketing v. Unique Sports Products, 2:18-cv-00193

Plaintiff Exact Marketing, Inc. d.b.a. Lizard Skins is a Utah corporation that manufactures and sells trademarked baseball bat grip tape and alleges Hot Glove copied its designs and trade dress.
Defendant Unique Sports Products, Inc. (Hot Glove) is a Georgia company that sells Mega Wrap bat grip tape through nationwide online retailers (Amazon, Walmart, TennisExpress, etc.) and operates two promotional websites.
Lizard Skins sued Hot Glove in the District of Utah for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices.
Hot Glove moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Utah (or alternatively to transfer venue to Georgia), arguing minimal contacts with Utah, no Utah office/registration, de minimis sales in Utah, and that its websites are merely informational/advertising.
Lizard Skins responded that Hot Glove purposefully directed products to Utah through nationwide retail partnerships, shipped products to Utah, and promoted products via websites accessible to Utah consumers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Utah has specific personal jurisdiction over Hot Glove	Hot Glove purposefully directed activities to Utah via national retailers, shipping to Utah, and website promotion; injuries arose from those activities	Hot Glove lacks sufficient Utah contacts: no registration, office, employees, or significant Utah sales; websites are passive advertising	Court: Prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction satisfied; minimum contacts exist and jurisdiction is reasonable
Whether asserting jurisdiction would offend due process / be reasonable	Utah has an interest; plaintiff and witnesses in Utah; burden on defendant is not dispositive	Defending in Utah is burdensome for out-of-state defendant	Court: Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under fair play and substantial justice factors
Whether venue should be transferred to Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)	Forum is proper; plaintiff’s choice of forum merits deference; many witnesses and evidence in Utah	Georgia is more convenient; defendant’s home forum	Court: Defendant failed to carry burden to show existing forum is inconvenient; denies transfer
Standard of proof at preliminary stage for jurisdiction	Plaintiff need only make prima facie showing; factual disputes resolved for plaintiff	N/A (defense contested facts)	Court applied prima facie standard and resolved factual disputes in plaintiff’s favor

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (minimum-contacts/stream-of-commerce principle)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (due process/minimum contacts standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and relatedness for specific jurisdiction)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (reasonableness/fair play and substantial justice factors)
Wenz v. Mem. Crystal Ball, 55 F.3d 1503 (10th Cir. prima facie showing at jurisdictional stage)
Soma Med. Int'l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d 1292 (two-part test: state law and due process for jurisdiction)