Vision Motor Cars, Inc. v. Valor Motor Co., 981 F. Supp. 2d 464

Plaintiff Vision Motor Cars asserts U.S. trademark and state-law claims arising from use of its mark “Vision Motor Cars.”
Defendants Gabus, Valor, Noble, and Smith challenge personal jurisdiction.
Court reviews both NC long-arm statute and due-process standards for nonresident defendants.
Vision Company evidence shows Delaware incorporation, NC-related website, and later transition to Valor; Vision Company ceased operations in 2012 and had no NC presence.
Valor redirected visitors from the Vision site to its own site, but has no NC offices or direct NC sales or solicitations.
Court finds no defendant has sufficient contacts with NC to support either general or specific jurisdiction; action dismissed on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NC long-arm statute permits jurisdiction.	Vision Motor Cars argues defendants’ NC-related activities satisfy § l-75.4(4)(a).	Defendants show no solicitation or services in NC by any defendant.	No; statute not satisfied; no jurisdiction.
Whether due process supports personal jurisdiction over any defendant.	Defendants targeted NC via online presence; sufficient minimum contacts.	No purposeful availment; no targeted activity toward NC; insufficient internet conduct.	No; no specific or general jurisdiction over any defendant.

Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Cters., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) (applies ALS Scan framework to internet activity and targeting)
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (test for internet-directed contacts and targeting forum state)
Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2001) (two-part due-process test for jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishes general versus specific jurisdiction)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts standard for jurisdiction)