Outdoor Channel, Inc. v. Performance One Media, LLC
826 F. Supp. 2d 1271
N.D. Okla.2011Background
- Outdoor Channel (Nevada) sues Performance One Media, LLC (POM) and Robert Sigg (POM president) in the NDOK for trademark infringement.
- POM is a New York LLC; Sigg resides in Colorado; neither defendant is Oklahoma-licensed, with no Oklahoma offices, employees, assets, or property.
- ICTV programming that allegedly infringes Outdoor Channel’s marks is broadcast nationwide via DISH and DirecTV, but contracts lack Oklahoma-specific targeting.
- POM contracts with Oklahoma entities (NRHA, BuckVentures, Hunt Sleep Fish Outdoors, Jimmy Houston Adventures, Hooked on Fishin’, etc.) involve Oklahoma invoicing and payments from Oklahoma banks.
- ICTV maintains an international website displaying the marks; interactions with Oklahoma residents occurred via a “contact us” function and a response to an Oklahoma inquiry.
- NRHA, an Oklahoma entity, negotiated and contracted with POM for ICTV programming, creating a potential but limited Oklahoma-focused contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether POM has specific jurisdiction in Oklahoma | Outdoor Channel argues POM purposefully directed activities at Oklahoma. | POM contends nationwide broadcasts and limited Oklahoma contacts are insufficient and not purposefully directed. | Specific jurisdiction over POM denied. |
| Whether Sigg has personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma | Plaintiff seeks jurisdiction over Sigg based on POM contacts. | Fiduciary shield bars attributing POM's contacts to Sigg; no independent Oklahoma contacts. | Personal jurisdiction over Sigg denied. |
| Whether Oklahoma has general jurisdiction over POM | Oklahoma contacts via NRHA etc. show continuous activity. | Contacts are not continuous/systematic enough to approximate physical presence. | General jurisdiction over POM denied. |
| Whether the plaintiff’s motion to amend or sanctions affects the jurisdiction ruling | Amendment or sanctions could change jurisdiction posture. | No material changes; sanctions unwarranted. | Motion to Amend moot; sanctions denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Omi Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.1998) (due process and minimum contacts; sliding scale reasonableness)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Sup. Ct. 1945) (minimum contacts needed for in-forum jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (contracts alone can establish purposefully availing; foreseeability of suit in forum)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir.2011) (internet jurisdiction narrowed by directed activity toward forum state)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (interactive website court test; passive sites generally no jurisdiction)
- Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speedvision Network, 995 F. Supp. 761 (W.D. Ky. 1997) (broadcasts alone insufficient for jurisdiction; proximity to state required)
- Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (website presence alone not jurisdiction; focus on directing activity to forum)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (Sup. Ct. 1952) (general jurisdiction based on continuous presence in forum via principal activities)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (general jurisdiction requires more than occasional contracts; physical presence relevant)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (harm focused in plaintiff’s home state; focus for national/international reach)