concluding that “express aiming” encompasses wrongful conduct individually targeting a known forum resident, that this conduct was sufficient for purposeful availment, and that the relatedness requirement was met because the contacts constituting purposeful availment gave rise to the current action
How later courts described this case
- concluding that “express aiming” encompasses wrongful conduct individually targeting a known forum resident, that this conduct was sufficient for purposeful availment, and that the relatedness requirement was met because the contacts constituting purposeful availment gave rise to the current action
- holding that, in the Ninth Circuit, the “effects” test established in Colder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), is met when a foreign defendant does a wrongful act to a foreign resident, without regard to whether the actual act is targeted at the forum
- finding that general jurisdiction was “lacking,” because, among other factors, the foreign corporation was not registered or licensed to do business, paid no taxes, and maintained no bank accounts in the forum, nor did it target advertising there
- concluding that “occasional, unsolicited sales of tournament tickets and merchandise to California residents” and maintenance- of a small number of license agreements with California vendors was insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (2006)
223 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds by Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1207
The opinion
SNEED, Circuit Judge,
with whom TROTT, Circuit Judge, joins, Concurring:
The “effects test” has normally been restricted to tortious conduct in which the “aimer” in state Y was seeking to injure wrongfully the target in state X. I concur in the opinion only on the assumption that Augusta National, through its letter to NSI, engaged in tortious conduct, i.e., that they intended to effect a conversion of the masters.com domain name.
I am skeptical of Bancroft & Masters’s selection of masters.com as its domain name. I suspect that Augusta National’s initial reaction was similar. Therefore, I do not find it implausible that Augusta National, through its letter to NSI, merely intended to protect its trademark from dilution and infringement. At this point, however, there is insufficient information with which to make such a judgment. Jurisdiction in California would be ripe for challenge if following the development of trial it should appear that Augusta National acted reasonably and in good faith to protect its trademark against an infringer.