127 F. Supp. 3d 531
M.D.N.C.2015Background
- Pathfinder (NC) alleges trademark infringement and Lanham Act false designation against Core Cashless (KS), arising from Core Cashless’ adoption of circular logos similar to Pathfinder’s mark and distribution of a mobile app.
- Core Cashless is a Kansas LLC with no offices, employees, property, or business registration in North Carolina; it has one NC customer (Billy Graham Library) under a $7,000/year support contract and partnered with a NC-based company (BPR) to supply a Georgia water park.
- Core Cashless operates a semi-interactive website (contact form, demo/test transaction) and has global social media pages; its Android app is downloadable via GooglePlay but cannot be used at any NC venues; a few NC residents downloaded the app and one submitted a website inquiry.
- Pathfinder filed a surreply after Core Cashless’ reply; Core Cashless moved to disregard the surreply and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
- The court declined to consider the surreply, then analyzed personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, without reaching venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pathfinder’s surreply should be considered | Surreply corrects factual and legal errors in reply; fairness requires consideration | Local rules disfavour surreplies; reply raised no new arguments | Court granted motion to disregard surreply; surreply not considered |
| General jurisdiction — is Core Cashless "at home" in NC? | Core Cashless’ NC contacts render it essentially at home | Core Cashless is incorporated and headquartered in KS; contacts with NC are limited | No general jurisdiction; not essentially at home in NC |
| Specific jurisdiction — do Core Cashless’ contacts (contract, press release, website, app) establish purposeful availment? | Contract with NC library, partnership with NC-based BPR, website inquiries, social media, and downloads by NC residents show purposeful availment; injury to Pathfinder in NC supports jurisdiction | Contacts are minimal, attenuated, and global; website and app are passive/semi-interactive and not targeted to NC; contract revenue minimal and remote performance occurs elsewhere | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff failed prima facie showing of purposeful availment |
| Calder/effects test — does alleged injury in NC allow jurisdiction? | Core Cashless’ intentional tortious acts were aimed at and caused injury in NC (Pathfinder’s domicile) | Effects test requires defendant’s conduct expressly aimed at the forum, not merely that a forum-resident plaintiff was injured | Effects test inapplicable; plaintiff failed to show defendant’s conduct was expressly aimed at NC |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires being "essentially at home")
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction; exceptional cases only)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (minimum contacts look to defendant’s contacts with the forum itself)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contractual contacts require a substantial connection with the forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test requires conduct expressly aimed at the forum)
- Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 2014) (prima facie standard for personal jurisdiction and purposeful availment factors)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (adopted Zippo sliding-scale for Internet contacts)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (passive–interactive–commercial website sliding scale)
- Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2009) (factors for purposeful availment analysis)