Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GMBH
293 F. Supp. 3d 232
D. Me.2017Background
- Plixer International (Maine) owns the U.S. registered trademark "Scrutinizer" and sued Scrutinizer GmbH (Germany) for Lanham Act trademark infringement based on the defendant's interactive, English-language, cloud-based website using the name "Scrutinizer."
- Scrutinizer GmbH has no U.S. offices, employees, servers, phone number, or U.S. agent; it accepts payments in euros and inserted German forum-selection clauses in contracts.
- Through the website over ~3.5 years, Scrutinizer GmbH completed 156 U.S. transactions (including two in Maine) totaling about €165,212 and filed a U.S. trademark application in January 2017 (post-filing of this suit).
- District court previously dismissed any claim of general jurisdiction and allowed limited discovery on specific jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) (the federal long-arm statute).
- After discovery, the court evaluated whether Rule 4(k)(2) permits specific jurisdiction (Fifth Amendment minimum contacts analysis) and separately whether Maine’s long-arm statute (Fourteenth Amendment analysis) permits jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(k)(2) permits specific jurisdiction over Scrutinizer GmbH | Scrutinizer purposely availed itself of U.S. commerce via an English interactive website, free trial, U.S. customers across ~30 states, recurring revenues, emailed invoices, and a U.S. trademark application | Website is passive/global availability; transactions in euros and no targeted U.S. advertising or physical contacts mean no purposeful availment | Denied motion to dismiss: on prima facie record 4(k)(2) provides specific jurisdiction (Fifth Amendment); court finds purposeful availment and relatedness and that gestalt reasonableness factors do not preclude jurisdiction |
| Whether Maine’s long-arm statute provides jurisdiction (state forum) | Same facts could support Maine jurisdiction | Contacts with Maine are minimal (two customers); defendant was unaware of Maine customers; no targeting of Maine | Dismissed Maine long-arm claim: contacts with Maine are attenuated and do not satisfy purposeful availment or reasonableness under Fourteenth Amendment |
| Relevance of defendant’s post-filing U.S. trademark application to jurisdiction | Plaintiff urges court to consider the application as additional contact supporting purposeful availment | Defendant says filing occurred after suit and is irrelevant | Court considered it permissible here (continuing alleged infringement; application confirms intent to engage U.S. market) but found it not outcome-determinative; it only reinforced purposeful availment |
| Whether operation of an international interactive website that sells cloud services supports purposeful availment | Plaintiff: interactive sales, recurring U.S. customers, billing emails, and revenue show deliberate engagement with U.S. market | Defendant: website availability alone is insufficient; sales in euros and no U.S.-specific targeting weigh against jurisdiction | Court: website was highly interactive, sold directly online, generated substantial and recurrent U.S. business knowingly—sufficient "something more" to find purposeful availment for Rule 4(k)(2) purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (functions of minimum contacts; federalism concerns)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (burden on foreign defendants; significance in reasonableness analysis)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (plurality guidance on stream-of-commerce and targeting)
- Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd. v. United States, 274 F.3d 610 (First Circuit discussion of Rule 4(k)(2) and Fifth Amendment limits)
- Cossaboon v. Maine Medical Center, 600 F.3d 25 (First Circuit: website interactivity needed as "something more" for jurisdiction)
- Harlow v. Children's Hospital, 432 F.3d 50 (First Circuit on limiting contacts to those surrounding the claimed injury)
- Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201 (First Circuit gestalt factors for reasonableness)