Foreign Candy Co. v. Tropical Paradise, Inc.
950 F. Supp. 2d 1017
N.D. Iowa2013Background
- Foreign Candy sues Tropical Paradise for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement and unfair competition.
- Tropical Paradise is a New York corporation with headquarters in Massachusetts; Foreign Candy is an Iowa company alleging infringement in Iowa.
- Tropical Paradise’s Cool Tropics products allegedly bearing RIP Marks were offered for sale via a distributor’s site linked from Tropical Paradise’s site.
- Foreign Candy alleges a link from Tropical Paradise’s site to CoffeeCow.com enabled Iowa purchases of Cool Tropics products, including a Texas CEO’s single purchase shipped to Iowa.
- Foreign Candy filed in district court in Iowa; Tropical Paradise moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; jurisdictional discovery was requested but denied.
- The court ultimately granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, and denied jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction based on internet contacts | Tropical Paradise’s site links to a distributor; a CEO purchased goods in Iowa. | Site is passive; no direct sales or contact with Iowa; no purposefully availed activities. | Insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction; website link alone not enough. |
| Relation of contacts to the claims | Contacts via online sales infringe in Iowa, causing harm to Foreign Candy. | Third-party purchase does not show defendant’s contact; no direct nexus. | Relationship not established; contacts not attributable to Tropical Paradise. |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Discovery could reveal additional Iowa-related contacts controlled by Tropical Paradise. | Speculation; no documentary evidence of additional contacts; discovery inappropriate. | Jurisdictional discovery denied. |
| Venue | Venue should be proper where personal jurisdiction exists (Iowa). | If no personal jurisdiction, venue is improper. | Venue not proper; coextensive with lack of jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (instructions on agency, website activity, and how third-party sites affect attribution of contacts)
- Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) (Zippo framework; interactive websites require evidence of forum residents’ access)
- Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2003) (Zippo sliding-scale approach; distinguishes web activity by defendant vs. third party)
- Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito, L.L.C., 647 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2011) (rejected mere website viewability; requires more than passive access for specific jurisdiction)
- Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejects hyperlink alone to third-party site as sufficient contact when no control over third party)