Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.
647 F.3d 1218
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. is a Florida copyright owner licensing celebrity photos; Brand Technologies, Inc. is an Ohio company that runs the celebrity-gossip.net site.
- Celebrity-gossip.net targets a national audience and features interactive elements (comments, polls, newsletters, tips).
- Brand has California-facing activities: ads and partnerships with California entities, a California-based ad agency, a California designer, and a California link-sharing arrangement; Brand itself has no California offices or taxes.
- In 2008, Brand allegedly reposted Mavrix’s photos of Fergie and Josh Duhamel from the Bahamas, causing alleged infringement and harm to Mavrix’s market value.
- Mavrix sued in the Central District of California for copyright infringement; Brand moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; district court denied jurisdictional discovery and dismissed.
- Appellate panel holds Brand is not generally subject to general jurisdiction in California but is subject to specific jurisdiction due to purposeful direction and targeted California market impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brand is subject to general jurisdiction in California. | Mavrix contends Brand’s California-related activities are continuous and systematic. | Brand argues no substantial, continuous, general presence in California. | No general jurisdiction in California. |
| Whether Brand is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California. | Mavrix asserts Brand purposefully directed activities and harmed California market. | Brand argues insufficient ties to California for specific jurisdiction. | Brand subject to specific jurisdiction in California. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction standard; continuous and systematic contacts must render defendant at home)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (general jurisdiction requires substantial, continuous contacts)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1952) (principal place of business and continuous operations can support jurisdiction)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (circulation and exploitation of a national publication supports jurisdiction for forum-based action)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for purposeful direction in tort cases)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful avaiIment/direction and reasonableness framework for specific jurisdiction)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (internet activity and interactivity relevance to jurisdiction (not general jurisdiction))
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (interactive website plus targeted conduct can support jurisdiction)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining minimum contacts and relatedness for jurisdiction)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (see above)
- Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (forum-related activity and national market considerations)
- Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (internet contacts and specific jurisdiction limitations)
- Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (calibrates Calder effects test for purposeful direction)