767 F. Supp. 2d 341
D. Conn.2011Background
- WorldCare, a Bermuda corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts, holds federally registered WORLDCARE marks and conducts second opinion telemedicine via those marks.
- World Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, adopts the name WorldCARE for some health insurance products and maintains a Connecticut registration to transact insurance business.
- WorldCare alleges World’s use of WorldCARE causes consumer confusion and filed trademark infringement and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act in Connecticut federal court.
- WorldCare served the Connecticut Insurance Commissioner as World's agent for service of process, arguing this consented to jurisdiction without a due process analysis.
- World contends that long-arm service and Connecticut consent allow jurisdiction; World argues there are only attenuated contacts with Connecticut and no proper venue, seeking transfer to Nebraska.
- The court ultimately denies dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and transfers the case to the District of Nebraska under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) as in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CT court has personal jurisdiction over World | WorldCare argues service on the Connecticut Commissioner constitutes consent to jurisdiction; no due process analysis needed. | World contends CT lacks minimum contacts and due process would be offended; consent does not override due process. | No personal jurisdiction; due process not satisfied. |
| Whether venue is proper in CT given lack of personal jurisdiction | If jurisdiction exists, CT would be proper venue under federal rules. | Without jurisdiction, venue is improper in CT. | Venue improper; transfer appropriate. |
| Whether the case should be transferred to Nebraska under § 1406(a) in the interest of justice | Pending transfer would be inequitable and is contrary to efficiency. | Transfer to Nebraska would cure jurisdiction and venue defects; in the interest of justice. | Grant transfer to District of Nebraska under § 1406(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1990) (consent or presence not controlling for due process in all foreign-corporation contexts)
- Talenti v. Morgan and Brother Manhattan Storage Co., Inc., 968 A.2d 933 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009) (consent to jurisdiction via registration contemplated by CT long-arm statute)
- Learjet Acquisition Corp. v. Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co., 966 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1992) (mere in-state service on a corporate agent does not automatically confer general jurisdiction)
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-step due process: minimum contacts and reasonableness factors)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness and fair play considerations in specific jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (Asahi factors for reasonableness in the due process analysis)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (limits rule for general jurisdiction based on forum contacts)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1962) (authorized transfer when venue or jurisdiction defects exist under § 1406(a))
- SongByrd, Inc. v. Estate of Grossman, 206 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2000) (transfer under § 1406(a) to cure venue and jurisdiction defects)