# Bancroft & Masters, Inc., a California Corporation v. Augusta National Inc., a Georgia Corporation

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 18, 2000 · 223 F.3d 1082

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493347

## Case

- **Full name:** BANCROFT & MASTERS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUGUSTA NATIONAL INC., a Georgia Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 18, 2000
- **Citations:** 223 F.3d 1082; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 9197; 55 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1941; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6941; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 20917; 2000 WL 1166319
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sneed
- **Judges:** Sneed, Schroeder, Trott
- **Cited by:** 469 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (2006).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493347

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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
- holding that licensing agreements and other contracts with California companies were insufficient to confer general jurisdiction because they “constitute doing business with California, but do not constitute doing business in California”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9493347. Public record. Not legal advice.