Recommended

Summary Comments

Animation Station, Ltd. v. The Chicago Bulls, LP,  992 F.Supp. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

Video claimed to have been used on NBA web sited without permission.  Case brought in NY and defendants tried to transfer it to Illinois.  Court holds Starwave (one of defendants) could have been sued in Illinois.  Starwave apparently never physically entered Illinois, did not transact business in Illinois, nor purposefully had other contact with Illinois.

Bochan v. La Fontaine, , 68 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D.Va. May 26, 1999), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8253 

Bochan criticized LaFontaine book by posting messages on Internet newsgroup.  Bochan sues LaFontaine's (Texas residents) for libel for suggesting Bochan was a pedophile.   Court finds Virginia jurisdiction noting that LaFontaine's knew Bochan lived and worked in Va and thus the harm their comments could cause would principally occur in that state.

CFOs 2 Go, Inc. v. CFO 2 Go Inc., ____ F. Supp.___ (N.D.Cal., June 5, 1998), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8886

CFOs 2 Go, Inc., California company, sues Washington company, CFO 2 Go for trademark infringement.   California district court failed to find California jurisdiction citing Cybersell Inc. v Cybersell Inc. and distinguished from Panavision.  Web site alone was not enough.

CompuServe Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996), reh'g, en banc, denied, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24796 (6th Cirl, Sept 19, 1996)

6th Circuit reversed lower court and found jurisdiction in Ohio as agreement stated Ohio law and shareware agreement which resulted in 12 sales in Ohio

Cybersell Inc., v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997),1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33871; 44 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA)
1928; 44 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1928

Web site accessible in California, alone, was insufficient to establish jurisdiction in California.

Digital Equipment Corporation v. Altavista Tech., Inc., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass 1997)  (Also see related case Alta Vista Corp., Ltd. v. Digital Equipment Corp., 44 F. Supp.2d 72, (D. Mass 1998))

Confusion over website was felt in Mass., Mass. jurisdiction found.

Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2065,  ___ F.Supp. ___ (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1997) 

"ESQWIRE.COM"
No NY jurisdiction

Inset Sytems v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 (D.Conn. 1996)

Advertising found to be directed at Conn. residents coupled with state statutory & common law resulted in finding jurisdiction

K.C.P.L. Inc. v. Nash,  ___ F. Supp. ______ (S.D.N.Y. November 23, 1998), 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 18464; 49 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1584, 1998 WL 823657 (distinguishing from Panavision below)

KCPL owned trademark REACTION and claimed trademark infringement from Nash's web site REACTION.COM.   KCPL alleges Nash (CA defendant) is a "cyberpirate" who is trying to exhort money from KCPL to get back domain name. NY district court fails to find jurisdiction.  Court distinguishes Panavision on the facts saying facts do not support that Nash is a cyberpirate.  The court further notes NY long arm statute is more stringent than California's.

Maritz v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D.Mo.1996); 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14978; 40 U.S.P.Q.2D(BNA) 1729   (See subsequent injunction decision at 947 F. Supp. 1338 (E.D.Mo.1996); 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14977)

Martiz, Missouri plaintiff, operated website and provided "Gold Mail."  Cybergold, California defendant, began website and started to offer similar services.  131 Missouri users accessed Cybergold site.  Court found Missouri jurisdiction.

Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, No. 97-55467, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir.1998); 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7557; 46 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1511; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2846; 98 Daily Journal DAR 3929, March 3, 1998, Argued, Submitted, Pasadena, California, April 17, 1998

"Cybersquatter case" where Court of Appeals affirmed California jurisdiction for Illinois Toeppen who registered "Panavision" domain name and tried to obtain money from Panavision to release domain name.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc. , 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), injunction issued July 16, 1996

Italian "PLAYMEN"
Violation of injunction found with website in Italy soliciting U.S.customers

Transcraft Corp. v. Doonan Trailer Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18687 (N.D. Ill. Nov 12, 1997), 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1097

Doonan Trailer, Kansas corporation, is sued by Transcraft in Illinois. Web site provided dealer and sales info (including phone numbers, addresses and e-mail addresses) but did not specifically invite Illinois residents to transact business.  Court failed to find Illinois jurisdiction saying web site like a national advertisement and no evidence that there were actual e-mail messages from Illinois residents to Doonan.

Vitullo v. Velociy Powerboats. Inc.,  ___ F. Supp. _____ (N.D. Ill. April 24, 1998), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7120, 1998 WL 246152

Fatal boating accident involving Vitullo's.  Husband was killed and wife injured whenVelocity Powerboat they were driving broke apart on Lake Michigan. Powerboat companies were Florida corporations. Other than national advertising and web site only connection with Illinois was that Velocity purchased certain parts from a company in Illinois and those parts were not used in the particular boat. Court cites Zippo "sliding scale" analysis favorably and ultimately finds jurisdiction as Illinois distributor sells Velocity boats and Velocity sells to a distributor who it knows targets Illinois residents.

Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com., Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997)

Dot Com did business in Pa.with 3000 Pa. residents signed up, jurisdiction found

Recommended

Summary Comments

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S. D. Ohio 1997) 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1997, February 3, 1997

CompuServ is granted preliminary injunction to prevent Cyber Promotions from sending "SPAM" to CompuServ customers using legal theory of "trespass to chattels."

Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. Apex Global Information Servs., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15344, ___ F.Supp. ___ (E. D. Pa. 1997), September 30, 1997, Decided, September 30, 1997

CyberPromotions is granted preliminary injunction to prevent Apex Global from terminating its ISP services to CyberPromotions without receiving 30 days advance notice per the agreement.

United States v. Baker, 890 F.Supp.1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995), aff'd sub nom.

Former U of Michigan student accused of transmitting rape and death fantasies via the Internet.

ACLU of Georgia v. Miller,  977 F. Supp. 1228, 43 U.S.P.Q.2D 1356, 1997 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14995 (N.D.Ga. June 20, 1997), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14971 (July 15, 1997),1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14972 (August 7, 1997

Ga. law criminalized knowingly identifying oneself falsely on the Internet and knowingly using a trademark in such a way as to falsely state or imply permission to use when it was not the case.  Court enjoined enforcement of statute until it could be reviewed on its merits and subsequently permanently enjoined enforcement of the Ga. statute.

Loving v. Boren, 956 F.Supp. 953, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2921 (W.D. Okla. 1997)

Professor at U of Oklahoma sues to prohibit university from enforcing a 2 tiered system for access to particular newsgroups.  Court finds professor failed to show sufficient evidence of impact on him by 2 tiered system and that U of Oklahoma computer system was not a public forum.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun County Library, 2 F.Supp.2d 783, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4725 (E.D. Va. April 7, 1998);  Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552,  1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18479, November 23, 1998  

Patrons of library sue its board for use of site-blocking software claiming the board's policy blocks their access to protected speech.  Court holds that "1st Amendment applies to, and limits, the discretion of a public library to place content-based restrictions on access to constitutionally protected materials within its collection."   Court enjoins library from enforcing its Internet use policy.   Court's conclusion states: "Although defendant [library] is under no obligation to provide Internet access to its patrons, it has chosen to do so and is therefore restricted by the First Amendment in the limitations it is allowed to place on patron access."