Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC
647 F.3d 741
8th Cir.2011Background
- Pangaea, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation owning the federal service mark The Flying Burrito Company, with first use in 2003 and registration in 2005.
- The Flying Burrito LLC is an Iowa limited liability company operating a restaurant in Ames, Iowa under the same name; Robert Moore is an Iowa resident who managed the Ames restaurant from its opening in August 2004 through August 2007.
- Shortly after the Iowa restaurant opened, Goodman (owner of the Iowa restaurant) and Moore traveled to Arkansas in 2004 seeking permission to use Pangaea’s mark; they did not obtain such permission and continued using the mark.
- On November 18, 2008, Pangaea filed a diversity action in the Western District of Arkansas alleging trademark infringement; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court held the 2004 Arkansas meeting was the sole contact and insufficient for general jurisdiction and not enough to establish specific jurisdiction; the alleged infringement occurred in Iowa and involved Iowa customers.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding the single trip to Arkansas did not establish purposeful availment or a sufficient connection to support jurisdiction consistent with due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas has personal jurisdiction over the Iowa defendants | Pangaea argues the 2004 Arkansas meeting shows purposeful availment. | Flying Burrito contends a single, isolated contact is insufficient for jurisdiction. | No; insufficient contacts for either general or specific jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 1945) (minimum contacts for due process)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1958) (purposeful availment)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (Supreme Court, 2011) (specific jurisdiction; purposeful availment)
- Digi-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomm., Ltd., 89 F.3d 519 (Eighth Cir., 1996) (single or scattered contacts insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds, 823 F.2d 223 (Eighth Cir., 1987) (one-off visit not enough to establish jurisdiction)
- Papachristou v. Turbines, Inc., 902 F.2d 685 (Eighth Cir., 1990) (contract performance affecting forum; isolated visit not enough)