Trustee of the Summers Family Trust TA Neak Products Buff WA Pty, Ltd. v. National Distribution Warehouse, Inc., 2:20-cv-10741

Background

Summers (Australian company doing business as Owlconic) sued Teacher's Choice (New York corp.) alleging Lanham Act trademark and trade dress infringement, design patent infringement (U.S. Design Patent No. D875,591), common‑law unfair competition, and tortious interference based on allegedly similar educational clock designs sold by Teacher's Choice.
Summers alleges widespread e‑commerce sales (primarily via Amazon) and that its clock face—centered circle divided into four differently colored quadrants—is its unregistered trademark/trade dress and is recognized by consumers.
Teacher's Choice operates an interactive commercial website and sells on Amazon; it has no offices, employees, or license to do business in California and is incorporated and principally located in New York.
Teacher's Choice moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, also raising venue and Rule 12(b)(6) challenges; Summers opposed and asked for jurisdictional discovery.
The court found no general jurisdiction (defendant not “at home” in California) and no specific jurisdiction: Summers failed to show purposeful direction/availment toward California and offered no evidence of sales to California via the defendant’s website; Teacher’s Choice’s president submitted a supplemental declaration denying California sales.
The court denied jurisdictional discovery and granted the motion, dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction without reaching venue or merits arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
General personal jurisdiction	Complaint alleged general jurisdiction; Summers conceded it was unlikely	Teacher's Choice is incorporated and based in New York, has no physical presence or continuous/systematic contacts in California	No general jurisdiction; defendant not "at home" in California
Specific personal jurisdiction	Website is interactive/commercial; defendant accepted orders, shipped accused products to known CA residents, Google Pay ties show CA connections	Defendant does not target CA, sales are fulfilled by Amazon, and no sales of accused products were made to CA via its website (supported by supplemental declaration)	No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show purposeful direction/availment toward California
Jurisdictional discovery	Discovery might reveal sales to CA or shipments to Amazon warehouses in CA	Defendant's declarations rebut Summers' bare allegations; discovery unnecessary	Denied: plaintiff's jurisdictional claim was attenuated and unsupported; discovery would not likely change result
Venue and merits (remaining 12(b)(3)/12(b)(6) defenses	Summers argued other defenses should be rejected	Teacher's Choice argued improper venue for design patent and failure to state claims	Not reached; court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (limits on general jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (corporate "at home" standard for general jurisdiction)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test for purposeful direction)
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (sliding‑scale test for website contacts)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (when systematic in‑state market contacts can support jurisdiction)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (purposeful availment/direction analysis in Ninth Circuit)
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (Ninth Circuit discussion of general vs. specific jurisdiction and tort‑like claims)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (plaintiff bears burden to make prima facie showing of jurisdiction)