Washington Shoe Company v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc
704 F.3d 668
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Washington Shoe is a Washington corporation with long-standing operations in Washington.
- A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc. is an Arkansas retailer with one store in Alma, Arkansas, and no online sales.
- A-Z purchased Washington Shoe items 2007–2009; Washington Shoe reps visited the Arkansas store and provided catalogs with copyright notices.
- A-Z allegedly sold infringing boots sourced from China; Washington Shoe confirmed infringement and sent cease-and-desist letters in 2009.
- After notices, A-Z removed infringing boots but sold remaining stock to a thrift store; Washington Shoe sued in WD Washington for copyright infringement and related claims.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for jurisdictional adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington Shoe appropriately establishes specific jurisdiction over A-Z in Washington. | Washington Shoe shows intentional acts aimed at WA and willful copyright infringement. | A-Z contends no purposeful direction toward WA and no forum-related activities. | Yes; express aiming and willful infringement satisfy minimum contacts. |
| Whether willful infringement supports express aiming and jurisdiction. | Willful knowledge of infringement and targeted letters show directed activity toward WA. | Willfulness alone is insufficient without targeting the forum. | Willful infringement with targeted conduct satisfies express aiming. |
| Whether harm from the infringement was intentionally directed at the forum state. | Economic and reputational harm were foreseeable in WA due to Washington Shoe’s location. | Harm need not be proven in the forum if other elements fail. | Harm anticipated in the forum state supports jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Supreme Court, 1984) (intentional act expressly aimed at the forum is required for jurisdiction)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (express aiming requires wrongful conduct targeted at a known forum resident)
- Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (firmly establishing purposeful direction/availability framework)
- Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997) (willful infringement and targeted harm can support jurisdiction)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (advertising/impact basis for express aiming; California focus)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc analysis of intentional targeting and effects)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court, 1980) (foreseeability and reasonable anticipation of being haled into court)