Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com

952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)

Facts:

  • Zippo Manufacturing (plaintiff) is a PA company that produces the lighters.
  • Zippo Dot Com is a California company that owns several domain names and operates a web site and news service with paying customers. It displays the Zippo name on its pages and some contain adult material
  • Defendant has about 3,000 customers in PA, and virtually all of its business is done via the Internet. They also have contracts with seven Internet Access providers in PA.

Procedural History:

  • Trial court: Plaintiff files suit against defendant alleging trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation.
  • Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

Motion denied.

Issue:

Whether PA’s Long Arm Statute (and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution) applies to a foreign corporation doing business with PA residents exclusively over the Internet.

Holding:

PA’s Long Arm Statute applies to a foreign corporation doing business with PA residents exclusively over the Internet if the company’s actions amount to purposeful availment, the claim arises from these actions, and jurisdiction is reasonable.

Rule:

A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation doing business with its residents exclusively over the Internet if the company’s actions amount to purposeful availment, the claim arises from these actions, and jurisdiction is reasonable.

3-prong test for jurisdiction:

  1. Minimum contacts (purposeful availment & foreseeability of being hailed into court). Sliding Scale.
  2. Claim arose from contacts
  3. Jurisdiction over the defendant is fair and reasonable. Factors:
    1. Defendant’s burden
    2. State interest
    3. Plaintiff’s interest
  1. Interstate judicial interests

Reasoning:

* The court first applies PA law, and then applies Due Process test.

* Defendant is liable in PA (according to the Long Arm Statute) because it “contracted to supply services…” according to state law. (p. 177). Also PA is permitted to exercise jurisdiction to the full extent of the Constitution.

* If personal jurisdiction does apply, it would have to be specific jurisdiction.

* 3-prong test for jurisdiction:

  1. Minimum contacts-

3,000 customers, 7 contracts

  1. Claim arose from contacts

When PA residents visit site, the lawsuit is about what is actually on the website.

  1. Jurisdiction over the defendant is fair and reasonable. Factors:
    1. Defendant’s burden- not high enough
    2. State interest- high
    3. Plaintiff’s interest – high
    4. Interstate judicial interests -high 

Court’s Order:

Motion denied.