Sweetgreen, Inc. v. Sweet Leaf, Inc.
882 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Sweetgreen, Inc. sues Sweet Leaf, Inc. and its owners in the District of Columbia federal court for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- Plaintiff asserts six claims including federal trademark, false designation, trade dress, DC unfair competition, DC common law, and an accounting of damages.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation operating in DC; defendants are a Virginia corporation with a McLean, Virginia restaurant and an online presence.
- Defendants’ contacts with DC include a passive website and social media; plaintiff argues these establish jurisdiction and venue.
- The court concludes there is no general or specific personal jurisdiction and transfers the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over defendants | Defendants maintain continuous and systematic DC contacts via online presence. | Contacts are passive and insufficient for doing business in DC. | No general jurisdiction; contacts are not continuous or systematic. |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction under DC long-arm statute | Defendants transacted business or caused tortious injury in DC through online presence. | Defendants have no DC-directed activities suitable for jurisdiction. | No specific jurisdiction; insufficient minimum contacts and transactions in DC. |
| Whether venue is improper in DC and transfer is appropriate | Venue in DC is proper due to defendant activities in the district. | Venue is improper; transfer to ED Va is appropriate. | Venue improper; transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (prima facie jurisdiction standard without discovery when asserted facts suffice)
- Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) (plaintiff must plead specific facts for personal jurisdiction)
- GTE New Media Servs. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (website accessibility alone not a jurisdictional basis)
- Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (long-arm jurisdiction statute interpreted to the full extent of due process)
- Shoppers Food Warehouse v. Moreno, 746 A.2d 320 (D.C. 2000) (advertising relationships can support jurisdiction if sufficiently directed)
- Hummel v. Koehler, 458 A.2d 1187 (D.C. 1983) (transacting business basis for long-arm jurisdiction)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (national advertising campaigns alone not enough for jurisdiction)
- Ferrara v. United States, 54 F.3d 825 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (transacting business in DC ties to long-arm jurisdiction)
- Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation, 958 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) (advertising/promotional activity via third parties not always jurisdiction)