Plixer Int’l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH - 293 F. Supp. 3d 232 (D.Me. 2017)

Rule:

Nationwide personal jurisdiction in federal court can be obtained through service of process if (1) the claim "arises under federal law," (2) the defendant is "not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and . . . exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws."

Facts:

Defendant Scrutinizer GmBH, a German company, has no physical presence in the United States, but it offers cloud-based services from an interactive website that attracts customers from around the world, including the United States (and two customers from Maine). A Maine firm, Plixer International, Inc. owns the U.S. registered mark "Scrutinizer." Plixer filed this lawsuit claiming that the German defendant was infringing its registered mark by operating an interactive website using the name "Scrutinizer," providing services similar to Plixer’s, generating income from customers in the United States, confusing the public, and diluting and infringing the mark.

Issue:

Does the Maine federal court have jurisdiction over Scrutinizer?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Maine long-arm statute cannot constitutionally justify personal jurisdiction here. The amount of Maine business was miniscule—in the words of the First Circuit, only "attenuated contacts,” and Scrutinizer was unaware that it even had Maine-based customers until this lawsuit. Scrutinizer could not reasonably have expected to be hailed into a Maine forum, and thus there was no purposeful availment. Plixer also did not satisfy the reasonableness standard for a Maine forum. Maine has some interest in this dispute in its concern for companies that do business in Maine and their well-being, but not in the law, which is federal. Maine's interest is very modest.