Unknown to many on here I have been kinda MIA from the boards since 2016/2017 because I have been tied up in TTAB (USPTO) proceedings against the DIESEL clothing company (they were trying to prevent me from using my "DIESEL" family of trademarks AND in federal court tied up in a jurisdictional battle from the defendants (Rev Labs) and their owners in California trying to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction (ie can Illinois call a non-resident to Illnois to answer and be responsible for harm caused by there actions that occured by there were domicile in another state).
The district judge dismissed my case way back in 2017 and denied my motion to amend his decision. On appeal the 7th circuit overturned the district court recently basically saying this case stays in Illinois. The moral of the story is you cannot evade jurisdiction for torts because you believe they took place by way of internet transactions and you never (physically) entered the state. Those of you involved in law Calder v. Jones, and Keeton v. Hustler governs these types of case and have recently (although they are from 1984 before the internet was even around) have been applied to jurisdictional contacts made online:
-------
Online Sales Enough For Supplement Suit In Ill., 7th Circ. Says
By Celeste Bott
Law360 (February 10, 2020, 8:36 PM EST) -- The Seventh Circuit on Monday revived a trademark lawsuit brought by the owner of a dietary supplement company, holding a competitor could be sued in Illinois over its internet sales of a similarly packaged supplement for athletes.
A three-judge panel ruled that Charles Curry, founder of a company called Get Diesel Nutrition, could pursue his infringement claims against Revolution Laboratories LLC over its use of the branded language "Diesel Test Red Series, All Natural Testosterone Booster" on similar products.
"We see no unfairness in subjecting Revolution to jurisdiction in Illinois," the court said. "Revolution is not physically present in the state. Nevertheless, it has structured its marketing so that it can easily serve the state's consumers — and it has done so by selling the allegedly confusing product in substantial quantity."
The Seventh Circuit drew similarities between this dispute and its 2010 ruling in Illinois v. Hemi Group, in which the court held that a New Mexico cigarette distributor that had sold hundreds of packages of cigarettes over the course of multiple years to an Illinois Department of Revenue agent through an interactive website was subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois.
"Like Hemi, Revolution sells its products only online through its website and third-party websites. Revolution's interactive website for the sale of its products requires the customer to select a shipping address. Illinois is among the 'ship-to' options from which the customer must choose," the court said.
The roughly 767 Illinois residents who bought Revolution's Diesel Test product between October 2016 and June 2017 also received emails from Revolution thanking them, confirming their order and listing the Illinois shipping addresses, the court noted. So the company's efforts to establish commercial contacts in Illinois "fairly can be described as purposeful," the panel said.
The company can't "have its cake and eat it, too," the panel said, saying Revolution appears to want the benefit of a nationwide business model without the exposure.
A district judge dismissed the lawsuit in August 2017, saying Curry failed to allege that Revolution has contacts with Illinois beyond its online sales to justify the exercise of jurisdiction, such as an advertising campaign directed at the state.
But the Seventh Circuit said that while caution is warranted to make sure defendants aren't sued simply for operating a website accessible in the forum state, Revolution's 767 sales to Illinoisans is "solid evidence" it purposely exploited the Illinois market and distinguishes it from a defendant that merely operates a website.
Revolution began selling the supplement at issue in October 2016. Later that year, both Curry and Revolution's president Joshua Nussbaum filed trademark applications for their respective products. Curry filed suit the following year, after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office suspended the processing of both applications, citing a likelihood of confusion between the marks, according to filings in the case.
Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment on Monday.
U.S. Circuit Judges Kenneth Ripple, Ilana Rovner and Amy Barrett sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.
Charles Curry represents himself.
Revolution is represented by Amy M. Gibson of Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa.
The case is Curry v Rev Labs et al. number 17-2900, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
--Editing by Daniel King.
The district judge dismissed my case way back in 2017 and denied my motion to amend his decision. On appeal the 7th circuit overturned the district court recently basically saying this case stays in Illinois. The moral of the story is you cannot evade jurisdiction for torts because you believe they took place by way of internet transactions and you never (physically) entered the state. Those of you involved in law Calder v. Jones, and Keeton v. Hustler governs these types of case and have recently (although they are from 1984 before the internet was even around) have been applied to jurisdictional contacts made online:
-------
Online Sales Enough For Supplement Suit In Ill., 7th Circ. Says
By Celeste Bott
Law360 (February 10, 2020, 8:36 PM EST) -- The Seventh Circuit on Monday revived a trademark lawsuit brought by the owner of a dietary supplement company, holding a competitor could be sued in Illinois over its internet sales of a similarly packaged supplement for athletes.
A three-judge panel ruled that Charles Curry, founder of a company called Get Diesel Nutrition, could pursue his infringement claims against Revolution Laboratories LLC over its use of the branded language "Diesel Test Red Series, All Natural Testosterone Booster" on similar products.
"We see no unfairness in subjecting Revolution to jurisdiction in Illinois," the court said. "Revolution is not physically present in the state. Nevertheless, it has structured its marketing so that it can easily serve the state's consumers — and it has done so by selling the allegedly confusing product in substantial quantity."
The Seventh Circuit drew similarities between this dispute and its 2010 ruling in Illinois v. Hemi Group, in which the court held that a New Mexico cigarette distributor that had sold hundreds of packages of cigarettes over the course of multiple years to an Illinois Department of Revenue agent through an interactive website was subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois.
"Like Hemi, Revolution sells its products only online through its website and third-party websites. Revolution's interactive website for the sale of its products requires the customer to select a shipping address. Illinois is among the 'ship-to' options from which the customer must choose," the court said.
The roughly 767 Illinois residents who bought Revolution's Diesel Test product between October 2016 and June 2017 also received emails from Revolution thanking them, confirming their order and listing the Illinois shipping addresses, the court noted. So the company's efforts to establish commercial contacts in Illinois "fairly can be described as purposeful," the panel said.
The company can't "have its cake and eat it, too," the panel said, saying Revolution appears to want the benefit of a nationwide business model without the exposure.
A district judge dismissed the lawsuit in August 2017, saying Curry failed to allege that Revolution has contacts with Illinois beyond its online sales to justify the exercise of jurisdiction, such as an advertising campaign directed at the state.
But the Seventh Circuit said that while caution is warranted to make sure defendants aren't sued simply for operating a website accessible in the forum state, Revolution's 767 sales to Illinoisans is "solid evidence" it purposely exploited the Illinois market and distinguishes it from a defendant that merely operates a website.
Revolution began selling the supplement at issue in October 2016. Later that year, both Curry and Revolution's president Joshua Nussbaum filed trademark applications for their respective products. Curry filed suit the following year, after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office suspended the processing of both applications, citing a likelihood of confusion between the marks, according to filings in the case.
Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment on Monday.
U.S. Circuit Judges Kenneth Ripple, Ilana Rovner and Amy Barrett sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.
Charles Curry represents himself.
Revolution is represented by Amy M. Gibson of Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa.
The case is Curry v Rev Labs et al. number 17-2900, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
--Editing by Daniel King.
Attachments
-
291.6 KB Views: 226