ZIPPO MANUFACTURING CO. v. ZIPPO DOT COM, INC.

952 F.Supp. 1119

 

RULE:

Court uses a three-pronged test for determining whether the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is appropriate: (1) the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, (2) the claim asserted against the defendant must arise out of those contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.

FACTS:

Defendant operated a website, which advertised in and offered to ship various Zippo products to PA, where plaintiff sued defendant for copyright infringement and other IP-related breaches. Defendant moved to dismiss, citing lack of personal jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Did the Court have jurisdiction over defendant, and the lawsuit against the defendant?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

In dismissing defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court noted that a significant amount of alleged infringement, dilution, and resulting injury occurred in Pennsylvania, thus the cause of action arose out of defendant's forum-related activities.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.