Starlight Int Ltd. V. Lifeguard Health Case Study

In Starlight Int’l, LTD. v. Lifeguard Health, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58927 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2008), California resident and plaintiff filed a complaint against Pennsylvania resident and defendant, claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Starlight is a limited partnership that markets and sells dietary supplements and Lifeguard also markets and sells dietary supplements and maintains an interactive website where it displays its product. Starlight alleges it owns the registered trademarks of Lifeguard, Lifeguard Junior, and Lifeguard Joint Formula. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to transfer venue to Pennsylvania. Defendant states that there is no basis for which

the court can assert personal jurisdiction simply because the company does not have contacts in California, do not advertise in California, and it conducts no online or physical advertising aimed at California consumers. In sum, the court found that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the state of California, and so, its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied.
Plaintiff maintains that it presented a prima facie case of general jurisdiction in California.

Therefore, “if a defendant is amenable to general jurisdiction in a state, the state may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant based on any claim, including claims unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the state.” Id. at 6 (quoting Coremetrics, Inc. v. AtomicPark.com, LLC, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2005). The Ninth Circuit Court considers the following factors when determining if general jurisdiction exists: whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state’s markets, designates an agent for service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there. With all factors presented, whether considered independently or together, the court determined that these contacts are not so “substantial, continuous, and systematic” that defendant can be viewed as present in California for all

purposes.
Plaintiff’s claim against defendant for specific jurisdiction entails the principle of meaningful availment.

Starlight asserts that Lifeguard purposefully directed its business at California through four contacts: (1) internet and direct sales to California consumers; (2) participation in the San Francisco trade show; (3) a retail partnership with MPower Solutions in California; and (4) an e-commerce relationship with Yahoo. The court established that defendant’s direct and internet sales to California consumers are sufficient evidence of purposeful availment of this forum, and thereby fulfills the first requirement of specific jurisdiction. By availing oneself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state through such actions, defendant invoked the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws. Accordingly, in return for these benefits and protections, the defendant must submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum. Additionally, the court affirmed that acompany’s useof an interactive website may constitute purposeful availment of a forum. Id. at 14 (Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F. 3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).
To fulfill thesecond requirement, the“contactsconstituting purposeful availment must be the ones that give rise to the current dispute,” as measured by the“but for” causation

test.
Defendant’scontacts in California, its website and advertising in a California tradeshow, resulted in salesthat allegedly violated plaintiff’strademark. The Ninth Circuit Court has established that once the plaintiff has fulfilled the first two requirements; the defendant bears the burden of proving that the third requirement, reasonableness, has not been met. Defendant asserted unreasonablenessbecauseLifeguard’s volume of sales in California is low, and the costs and burden of defending the suit here relative to these sales would be disproportionately high. Also, defendant contends that Pennsylvania forum would be more efficient because documents and witnesses are likely to be located in Pennsylvania; and lastly, it would be unreasonable for defendant to be dragged into a California court to defend a suit when its business had little or no contacts with California.
The court determined that the above listed assertions made by the defendant were inadequate to establish the requisite of unreasonableness. In addition, plaintiff has shown that defendant purposefully inserted itself into California by directing its business in part to California internet consumers. Defendant did not show a compelling reason why litigation in California would be any more burdensome on defendant than litigation in Pennsylvania would be on plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff was awarded and defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied.