922 F. Supp. 2d 536
E.D. Va.2013Background
- PEOPLExpress sues 200 Kelsey for declaratory relief, cybersquatting, and unfair trade practices relating to the mark PEOPLE EXPRESS and related domain names.
- 200 Kelsey moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and alternatively to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or strike under Rule 12(f).
- PEOPLExpress alleges it began preparations to use the PEOPLExpress brand in Virginia and filed an intent-to-use application on September 22, 2011.
- 200 Kelsey allegedly filed a prior-pending intent-to-use for PEOPLE EXPRESS in 2009, and a second application later, which PEOPLExpress claims blocks registration and is used to demand licenses.
PEOPLExpress contends 200 Kelsey’s actions, including license demands and domain-name registrations, target the Virginia forum; 200 Kelsey asserts no Virginia presence or activity.
The court grants 200 Kelsey’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, finding no personal jurisdiction, and declines to address the Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(f) motions; PEOPLExpress may pursue relief in a more appropriate forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over 200 Kelsey. | PEOPLExpress asserts license demand and domain activity directed at Virginia give jurisdiction. | Kelsey contends no purposeful availment or Virginia presence. | No jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(2) granted. |
| Whether Virginia long-arm § 8.01-328.1(A)(1) supports jurisdiction. | Statutory transaction of business in Virginia suffices. | No Virginia act or single transaction by 200 Kelsey. | Not satisfied;§ 8.01-328.1(A)(1) not met in this record. |
| Whether license demand constitutes purposeful availment. | License demand directed at a Virginia resident creates substantial connection. | Contacts are outside Virginia and attenuated. | Not enough; no purposeful availment. |
| Whether domain-name registration/offers support jurisdiction. | Domain-name acts constitute extortionate offer creating jurisdiction. | No alleged offers to PEOPLExpress; no in-forum activity. | Not sufficient to create jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment required for specific jurisdiction; substantial connection needed)
- Int’l. Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts essential for due process)
- Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction; purposeful availment key)
- Geometric, Ltd. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 561 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2009) (three-factor test for minimum contacts; focus on contact quality)
- Peninsula Cruise, Inc. v. New River Yacht Sales, Inc., 257 Va. 315, 512 S.E.2d 560 (1999) (Virginia long-arm single-transaction doctrine merges with due process)