528 F. App'x 525
6th Cir.2013Background
- Traton defendants operate in Georgia; Traton News (Ohio) is plaintiff.
- Plaintiff operates traton.com with a browsewrap agreement including a forum clause.
- Clause provides exclusive jurisdiction in the Southern District of Ohio for disputes relating to use of traton.com.
- Lanham Act claims against Traton Homes are brought alongside breach of contract claims.
- District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; found Lanham Act claims outside the clause and browsewrap unenforceable.
- Court of appeals affirms: Lanham Act claims fall outside the forum clause; no need to address due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Lanham Act claims arise out of or relate to use of traton.com? | Smith argues claims relate to use of traton.com. | Traton Homes contends claims fall outside the clause's scope. | Lanham Act claims fall outside the forum clause. |
| Was dismissal proper given lack of personal jurisdiction over Traton Homes? | Smith asserts sufficient contacts with Ohio. | Traton Homes challenges jurisdiction but relies on clause scope. | Court affirms dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction on the scope issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2012) (browsewrap/public terms distinctions and related scope guidance)
- City of Monroe Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bridgestone Corp., 399 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of personal jurisdiction; framework for consent clauses)
- Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Eng’g Grp., Inc., 860 N.E.2d 741 (Ohio 2007) (forum selection clause scope; concrete Ohio law interpretation)
- Council of Smaller Enters. v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 687 N.E.2d 1352 (Ohio 1998) (interpretation of arbitration clause breadth and scope)