Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1093819
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/06/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92072655
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Plaintiff
`Playlearn USA, Inc.
`
`MARK BERKOWITZ
`AMSTER ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 PARK AVENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10016
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: ptodocket@ARELAW.com
`212-336-8000
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`Mark Berkowitz
`
`ptodocket@arelaw.com
`
`/Mark Berkowitz/
`
`11/06/2020
`
`Motion to Resume Proceeding.pdf(14558 bytes )
`Ex. A - Order Granting Motion to Dismiss.pdf(459082 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PLAYLEARN USA, INC.,
`
`VIAHART, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Registrant.
`
`Cancellation No. 92072655
`
`Mark: BRAIN FLAKES
`Serial No. 87021780
`Reg. No.: 5049910
`Filed: May 3, 2016
`Registered: September 27, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO RESUME PROCEEDING
`
`Petitioner, Playlearn USA, Inc., (hereinafter “Petitioner”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby moves to resume this proceeding pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a), TBMP
`
`§ 510.02(b), and the Board’s January 29, 2020 Order (11 TTABVUE). On January 29, 2020, the
`
`Board granted Registrant, Viahart, LLC’s (hereinafter “Registrant”) Motion to Suspend this
`
`proceeding due to the parties’ involvement in a civil action filed in the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas, styled Viahart, LLC v. Arkview, LLC d/b/a Moo Toys and
`
`d/b/a Lexivon, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00406 (the “Civil Action”). The Board determined that
`
`“the same parties and the same or similar issues” were involved in both this proceeding and the
`
`Civil Action. (11 TTABVUE 3.) However, in view of Petitioner’s pending motion to dismiss in
`
`the Civil Action, the Board explained that Petitioner “may file a motion . . . addressing whether
`
`further suspension of this Board proceeding is warranted” upon dismissal of Petitioner from the
`
`Civil Action.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner hereby advises the Board that the Civil Action which occasioned
`
`the suspension of this proceeding has been dismissed as to Petitioner. Attached as Exhibit A is a
`
`
`4816-7170-8881v.1
`
`

`

`Cancellation No. 92072655
`
`true copy of the order in the Civil Action granting Petitioner’s motion to dismiss under Rule
`
`12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a lack of personal jurisdiction.
`
`Now that Petitioner is no longer a party to the Civil Action, the suspension of this
`
`proceeding should be lifted. Although the Civil Action has not been dismissed as to all
`
`defendants, the remaining defendants in the proceeding are unrelated to Petitioner1 and it would
`
`be prejudicial to continue to suspend Petitioner’s right to pursue this proceeding. Indeed, such
`
`prejudice is the reason that “the Board seldom . . . suspend[s] . . . proceeding[s] pending
`
`disposition of other . . . proceedings brought by unrelated plaintiffs against the same . . .
`
`registration.” TBMP § 510.02(a) (emphasis added) (citing New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC v.
`
`Who Dat?, Inc., 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1550, 1551 (TTAB July 22, 2011)). To do otherwise would
`
`likely “prejudice . . . th[e parties] who did not consent to suspension”; for example, “[e]vidence
`
`or witnesses may be lost if there is a protracted delay in the ability of opposers . . . to bring their
`
`claims.” New Orleans Louisiana Saints, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1551 & n.4.
`
`Here, there are no circumstances that would warrant such prejudice to Petitioner by
`
`delaying its ability to pursue its claims, and the Board should exercise its discretion to resume
`
`proceedings. See TBMP § 510.02(a) (citing Martin Beverage Co., v. Colita Beverage Corp., 169
`
`USPQ 568, 570 (TTAB 1971)).
`
`
`1 Registrant brought claims against 14 different defendants in the Civil Action, and alleged
`trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution claims based on distinct, allegedly
`infringing acts by each of those 14 different parties. Specifically, Registrant’s trademark claims
`against Petitioner were based on the allegation that Petitioner “us[ed] BRAIN FLAKES as a
`search term on Amazon” (7 TTABVUE, Ex. 1, Compl. ¶ 40 (emphasis added)), whereas
`Registrant’s claims against the other remaining defendants are based on unrelated acts performed
`by those other parties (see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 32, 38–39, 41).
`
`
`4816-7170-8881v.1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Cancellation No. 92072655
`
`In view of the final disposition of all the claims against Petitioner in the Civil Action, and
`
`for the above reasons, Petitioner requests that the suspension be lifted, that the proceeding be
`
`resumed, and that the dates be reset as appropriate.
`
`
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`November 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/ Mark Berkowitz /
`Mark Berkowitz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10016
`Phone: (212) 336-8000
`Email: mberkowitz@arelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`4816-7170-8881v.1
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Cancellation No. 92072655
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION TO RESUME PROCEEDING, together with supporting EXHIBIT A, has been
`
`served on Registrant by forwarding said copy on November 6, 2020, via email to the following
`
`counsel of record for Registrant
`
`Wendy B. Mills
`WB Mills, PLLC
`14275 Midway Road, Suite 130
`Addison, TX 75001
`Email: wbm@wbmillslaw.com
`
` /Mark Berkowitz/
` Mark Berkowitz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4816-7170-8881v.1
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 908
`
`No. (cid:348)(cid:497)(cid:343)(cid:351)-cv-(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:346)(cid:342)(cid:348)
`
`Viahart, LLC,
`Plaintif,
`v.
`Arkview LLC et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`”efore ”“RKER, District Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This case arises from a dispute between manufacturers of
`certain engineering-type children(cid:514)s toys. Plaintif alleges that
`defendants have infringed on its non-patent intellectual prop-
`erty related to the (cid:515)”rainlakes(cid:516) interlocking-disk toy.
`”efore the court are the following motions(cid:497)
`• Defendant PlayLearn US“, Inc.(cid:514)s motion to dismiss
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:508)
`(cid:507)for lack of personal jurisdiction(cid:508) and (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:348)(cid:508) (cid:507)for fail-
`ure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted(cid:508)
`(cid:507)Doc. (cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:508), which was briefed through the reply (cid:507)Docs.
`(cid:343)(cid:350) & (cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:508).
`• Defendant Comfortscape LLC(cid:514)s motion to dismiss pur-
`suant to Rule (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:508) (cid:507)Doc. (cid:345)(cid:351)(cid:508), which was briefed
`through the sur-reply (cid:507)Docs. (cid:347)(cid:351), (cid:348)(cid:347), & (cid:348)(cid:351)(cid:508).
`• Defendant Jesus Diaz Maso(cid:514)s motion to dismiss pursu-
`ant to Rule (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:508) and (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:348)(cid:508) (cid:507)Doc. (cid:346)(cid:342)(cid:508), which was
`briefed through the sur-reply (cid:507)Docs. (cid:348)(cid:342), (cid:348)(cid:348), & (cid:349)(cid:342)(cid:508).
`• Finally, defendant Creative Kids Far East, Inc.(cid:514)s motion
`to dismiss pursuant to Rule (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:508) and (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:348)(cid:508) (cid:507)Doc.
`(cid:347)(cid:350)(cid:508), which was briefed through the sur-reply (cid:507)Docs. (cid:348)(cid:344),
`(cid:348)(cid:349), & (cid:349)(cid:343)(cid:508).
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 909
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motions
`to dismiss on Rule (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:507)b(cid:508)(cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:508) personal-jurisdiction grounds. “c-
`cordingly, the court will not address the alternative failure-to-
`state-a-claim argument in those motions to dismiss. See Perva-
`sive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, (cid:348)(cid:350)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d (cid:344)(cid:343)(cid:346), (cid:344)(cid:345)(cid:343)-
`(cid:345)(cid:344) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:508).
`
`Background
`Defendant PlayLearn is a New York corporation that does
`not maintain (cid:515)any employees, oice locations, or other pres-
`ence in Texas(cid:516) and does not engage in any advertising tar-
`geted speciically toward Texas residents, (cid:515)by geographically-
`focused online marketing or otherwise.(cid:516) Doc. (cid:343)(cid:343) at (cid:348). It does
`operate its own e-commerce website and sell through “ma-
`zon.com Inc.(cid:514)s e-commerce platform. Doc. (cid:343)(cid:343)-(cid:344). PlayLearn(cid:514)s
`sales through “mazon are (cid:515)fulilled by “mazon,(cid:516) meaning
`that “mazon stores the products in its facilities and (cid:515)pick[s],
`pack[s], ship[s], and provide[s] customer service for [those]
`products.(cid:516) Id. It is unknown whether “mazon stored any of
`PlayLearn(cid:514)s products in Texas or performed any other fulill-
`ment services in Texas. PlayLearn(cid:514)s only sales to Texas resi-
`dents have been through “mazon. Id. PlayLearn argues that
`it cannot be automatically subject to the jurisdiction of this
`court simply because it operates an e-commerce site accessi-
`ble in Texas and made some sales to Texas residents that were
`fulilled by “mazon. Doc. (cid:343)(cid:343) at (cid:347)-(cid:349).
`Defendant Comfortscape is organized in Delaware. Doc.
`(cid:348)(cid:347)-(cid:343). Defendant Maso is a Florida resident and the president
`of Comfortscape. Id. Comfortscape, like PlayLearn, has no
`contacts with Texas other than its presence on “mazon(cid:514)s plat-
`form and sales through “mazon(cid:514)s fulillment services. Doc.
`(cid:345)(cid:351) at (cid:346). Maso(cid:514)s only contacts with Texas are two personal trips
`and a layover in an airport. Doc. (cid:346)(cid:342)-(cid:343). Comfortscape argues
`that it cannot automatically be subject to the jurisdiction of
`this court simply because it uses “mazon(cid:514)s platform and ful-
`illment services. Doc. (cid:345)(cid:351) at (cid:346)-(cid:347). Maso argues that he cannot
`
`
`
`- (cid:344) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 910
`
`be subject to the jurisdiction of this court because of actions
`atributable to Comfortscape, even if those actions would sub-
`ject Comfortscape to the jurisdiction of the court. Doc. (cid:346)(cid:342) at (cid:348)-
`(cid:350).
`
`Defendant Creative Kids is a New York corporation. Doc.
`(cid:347)(cid:350) at (cid:349). Creative Kids sells the product in question to another
`entity, (cid:515)Creative Kids Online LLC,(cid:516) also based in New York,
`which sells the product to consumers and other businesses.
`Id. at (cid:344)-(cid:345). Creative Kids does no marketing, except through
`“mazon, and that marketing is not targeted to any particular
`state. Id. at (cid:349). Creative Kids argues that it has no contacts with
`Texas that could subject it to the jurisdiction of this court.
`With respect to PlayLearn, Comfortscape, and Maso,
`plaintif argues that their presence on “mazon(cid:514)s platform and
`their sales to Texas residents through “mazon is suicient to
`establish personal jurisdiction. Docs. (cid:343)(cid:350) at (cid:349)-(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:498) (cid:347)(cid:351) at (cid:347)-(cid:343)(cid:342)(cid:498) &
`(cid:348)(cid:342) at (cid:347)-(cid:351). Plaintif makes the same argument as to Creative
`Kids but also atempts to argue, without citing authority, that
`Creative Kids(cid:514) relationship with Creative Kids Online LLC
`subjects it to jurisdiction here. Doc. (cid:348)(cid:344) at (cid:347)-(cid:348), (cid:350)-(cid:343)(cid:344).
`Legal Standard
`Federal courts follow the law of the forum state in deter-
`mining the bounds of in personam jurisdiction. Daimler “G v.
`”auman, (cid:347)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. (cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:349), (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:347) (cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:346)(cid:508). The Texas long-arm statute
`grants personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by fed-
`eral due-process limits and, therefore, this inquiry becomes
`one of federal constitutional limits. Moki Mac River Expeditions
`v. Drugg, (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:343) S.W.(cid:345)d (cid:347)(cid:348)(cid:351), (cid:347)(cid:349)(cid:347) (cid:507)Tex. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:349)(cid:508)(cid:498) Johnston v. Multidata
`Sys. Int’l Corp., (cid:347)(cid:344)(cid:345) F.(cid:345)d (cid:348)(cid:342)(cid:344), (cid:348)(cid:342)(cid:351) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:350)(cid:508). Due-process
`limitations dictate that a defendant is subject to personal ju-
`risdiction only if it (cid:515)has certain minimum contacts with [the
`forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not
`ofend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.(cid:516)
`Daimler “G, (cid:347)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. at (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:348) (cid:507)cleaned up(cid:508). This inquiry has two
`parts.
`
`
`
`- (cid:345) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 911
`
`In the irst part of the inquiry, the court must determine
`whether the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the
`privilege of conducting business in the forum state and of
`(cid:515)the beneits and protections(cid:516) of the forum's laws. ”urger King
`Corp. v. Rudzewicz, (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. (cid:346)(cid:348)(cid:344), (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:347)-(cid:349)(cid:348) (cid:507)(cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:350)(cid:347)(cid:508). If so, it is (cid:515)pre-
`sumptively not unreasonable to require [it] to submit to the
`burdens of litigation in that forum as well.(cid:516) Id. Speciic juris-
`diction, as opposed to general jurisdiction, exists where (cid:515)the
`suit arises out of or relates to(cid:516) the foreign defendant(cid:514)s (cid:515)mini-
`mum contacts(cid:516) with the forum. Daimler “G, (cid:347)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. at (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:349).
`Thus, the focus of the analysis is on the relationship between
`the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Walden v. Fiore,
`(cid:347)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. (cid:344)(cid:349)(cid:349), (cid:344)(cid:350)(cid:346) (cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:346)(cid:508). “nd this analysis involves three prin-
`ciples. First, the contacts must be those of the defendant itself,
`rather than the unilateral act of some third party, and those
`contacts must be with the forum state, rather than with per-
`sons in the forum state. Id. at (cid:344)(cid:350)(cid:346)-(cid:350)(cid:348). Second, the contacts
`must be purposeful, rather than random or fortuitous. Id. at
`(cid:344)(cid:350)(cid:348) (cid:507)citing ”urger King, (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. at (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:347)(cid:508). Third, the defendant
`must seek some beneit or advantage by its contacts with the
`forum. See ”urger King, (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. at (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:345)-(cid:349)(cid:348).
`In the second part of the inquiry, maintenance of the suit
`in the selected forum must comply with traditional notions of
`fair play and substantial justice. Id. at (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:348)-(cid:349)(cid:350). The court need
`not analyze the second inquiry where the irst inquiry fails.
`The touchstone of the personal-jurisdiction analysis is
`whether the defendant (cid:515)should reasonably anticipate being
`haled into court(cid:516) in the forum, given its relevant conduct. Id.
`at (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:346). ”ut foreseeability is not the ultimate concern and is
`constrained by the above framework and by the principle that
`jurisdiction is primarily a question of authority rather than
`fairness. See J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd v. Nicastro, (cid:347)(cid:348)(cid:346) U.S. (cid:350)(cid:349)(cid:345),
`(cid:350)(cid:350)(cid:343)-(cid:350)(cid:346) (cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:508). Thus, jurisdiction may only rest on the defend-
`ant(cid:514)s purposeful contacts that manifest its intention to submit
`
`
`
`- (cid:346) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 912
`
`to jurisdiction. Id.(cid:498) Wilson v. ”elin, (cid:344)(cid:342) F.(cid:345)d (cid:348)(cid:346)(cid:346), (cid:348)(cid:346)(cid:350)-(cid:346)(cid:351) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir.
`(cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:351)(cid:346)(cid:508).
`The internet presents unique challenges in conducting a
`personal-jurisdiction analysis. ”ut the same framework and
`rules apply, and each case must be analyzed independently
`for compliance with due process, taking into account all inter-
`net and non-internet contacts. Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware
`GmbH & Co. KG, (cid:348)(cid:350)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d (cid:344)(cid:343)(cid:346), (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:348)-(cid:344)(cid:349) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:508). The Fifth
`Circuit has adopted the Zippo analysis to aid in evaluating in-
`ternet-based contacts. Mink v. ““““ Dev. LLC, (cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:342) F.(cid:345)d (cid:345)(cid:345)(cid:345),
`(cid:345)(cid:345)(cid:348) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir. (cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:351)(cid:351)(cid:508) (cid:507)citing Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,
`(cid:351)(cid:347)(cid:344) F. Supp. (cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:351), (cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:346) (cid:507)W.D. Pa. (cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:351)(cid:349)(cid:508)(cid:508). Zippo created a slid-
`ing scale of internet contacts, starting at one end where a hy-
`pothetical defendant enters into contracts which (cid:515)involve the
`knowing and repeated transmission of computer iles over the
`internet.(cid:516) Id. This kind of defendant would be subject to spe-
`ciic jurisdiction for cases arising from those contacts. “t the
`other end of the spectrum is a hypothetical defendant who
`maintains a (cid:515)passive website that does nothing more than ad-
`vertise.(cid:516) Id. Such a defendant would not be subject to speciic
`jurisdiction in the forum. For cases in the middle ground, (cid:515)the
`exercise of jurisdiction is determined by the level of interac-
`tivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information
`that occurs on the website.(cid:516) Id.
`Technological advances and the internet have (cid:515)alter[ed]
`the landscape of personal jurisdiction.(cid:516) ”ut (cid:515)technology can-
`not eviscerate the constitutional limits(cid:516) of a court(cid:514)s power to
`exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. J-L Chieftain, Inc. v. W.
`Skyways, Inc., (cid:345)(cid:347)(cid:343) F. Supp. (cid:344)d (cid:347)(cid:350)(cid:349), (cid:347)(cid:351)(cid:345) (cid:507)E.D. Tex. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:346)(cid:508) (cid:507)citing
`“LS Scan, Inc. v. Dig. Serv. Consultants, Inc., (cid:344)(cid:351)(cid:345) F.(cid:345)d (cid:349)(cid:342)(cid:349), (cid:349)(cid:343)(cid:343)
`(cid:507)(cid:346)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:344)(cid:508)(cid:508). Thus, (cid:515)even in the strange realm of internet-
`related contacts, the standard for personal jurisdiction re-
`mains that a non-resident defendant must have purposefully
`availed itself of the beneits and protections of the forum's
`laws.(cid:516) “pplied Food Scis., Inc. v. New Star (cid:344)(cid:343), Inc., No. W-(cid:342)(cid:349)-
`
`
`
`- (cid:347) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 913
`
`C“-(cid:345)(cid:347)(cid:351), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:351) WL (cid:351)(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:345), at *(cid:346) (cid:507)W.D. Tex. Jan. (cid:344)(cid:345), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:351)(cid:508) (cid:507)cit-
`ing ”urger King Corp., (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:343) U.S. at (cid:346)(cid:349)(cid:346)(cid:508). “s a result, courts have
`held that Zippo is not a replacement for the traditional analy-
`sis, but rather a supplement. Vitamins Online v. Dynamic Inds.,
`No. (cid:344)(cid:497)(cid:343)(cid:345)-cv-(cid:348)(cid:348)(cid:347), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:346) WL (cid:347)(cid:346)(cid:347)(cid:350)(cid:348)(cid:346), at *(cid:344) (cid:507)D. Utah Feb. (cid:343)(cid:342), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:346)(cid:508)
`(cid:507)citing Shrader v. ”iddinger, (cid:348)(cid:345)(cid:345) F.(cid:345)d (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:345)(cid:347), (cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:346)(cid:344) n.(cid:347) (cid:507)(cid:343)(cid:342)th Cir.
`(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:508)(cid:508)(cid:498) see also Pervasive Software Inc., (cid:348)(cid:350)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d at (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:349) n.(cid:349).
`The court is therefore conscious that in applying the tradi-
`tional analysis, supplemented by Zippo, it must (cid:515)ensure that a
`defendant is not haled into court simply because the defend-
`ant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum
`state, even if that site is (cid:513)interactive.(cid:514)(cid:516) be(cid:344) LLC v. Ivanov, (cid:348)(cid:346)(cid:344)
`F.(cid:345)d (cid:347)(cid:347)(cid:347), (cid:347)(cid:347)(cid:350) (cid:507)(cid:349)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:508). The defendant must somehow
`purposefully target the forum state. Id. (cid:507)collecting cases(cid:508)(cid:498) Per-
`vasive Software Inc., (cid:348)(cid:350)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d at (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:349)-(cid:344)(cid:350)(cid:498) Guidecraft, Inc. v.
`OJCommerce, LLC, No. (cid:344)(cid:497)(cid:343)(cid:350)-cv-(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:346)(cid:349), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:351) WL (cid:344)(cid:345)(cid:349)(cid:345)(cid:346)(cid:346)(cid:342), at *(cid:347)
`(cid:507)W.D. Pa. May (cid:344)(cid:342), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:508) (cid:507)citing Toys (cid:515)R(cid:516) Us, Inc. v. Step Two,
`S.“., (cid:345)(cid:343)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d (cid:346)(cid:346)(cid:348), (cid:346)(cid:347)(cid:346) (cid:507)(cid:345)d Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:345)(cid:508)(cid:508).
`Where, as here, the court does not hold an evidentiary
`hearing, the plaintif bears the burden of establishing a prima
`facie case of personal jurisdiction. Sangha v. Navig8 ShipMan-
`agement Private Ltd., (cid:350)(cid:350)(cid:344) F.(cid:345)d (cid:351)(cid:348), (cid:343)(cid:342)(cid:343) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:350)(cid:508). The court
`need not constrain its inquiry to the pleadings and may con-
`sider the record. Id. Plaintif(cid:514)s jurisdictional allegations must
`be taken as true, and conlicts of facts in the record must be
`resolved in favor of plaintif, but that does not mean that a
`prima facie case has automatically been presented. Id.(cid:498) Wilson,
`(cid:344)(cid:342) F.(cid:345)d at (cid:348)(cid:346)(cid:350). Furthermore, the court need not credit conclu-
`sory allegations, even when uncontroverted. “pplied Food
`Scis., (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:351) WL (cid:351)(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:343)(cid:345), at *(cid:344) (cid:507)citing Panda ”randywine Corp. v.
`Potomac Elec. Power, (cid:344)(cid:347)(cid:345) F.(cid:345)d (cid:350)(cid:348)(cid:347), (cid:350)(cid:348)(cid:350) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:508)(cid:508).
`Discussion
`Plaintif(cid:514)s jurisdictional statement, as to personal jurisdic-
`tion, is as follows(cid:497)
`
`
`
`- (cid:348) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 914
`
`This Court may properly exercise personal ju-
`risdiction over Defendants, as each of the De-
`fendants direct business activities toward and
`conduct business with consumers throughout
`the United States, including Texas residents
`through their respective websites and/or their
`respective online marketplace accounts, includ-
`ing without limitation, their “mazon accounts
`identiied in Schedule “ atached hereto (cid:507)collec-
`tively, (cid:515)Defendants(cid:514) Internet Stores(cid:516)(cid:508). Further,
`Defendants operate or have operated interac-
`tive Internet Stores through which, Texas resi-
`dents can purchase products bearing counter-
`feit versions of Viahart(cid:514)s trademarks.
`Doc. (cid:343) at (cid:346)-(cid:347).
`Having reviewed the brieing and exhibits, the court has
`identiied the following potential contacts(cid:497) (cid:507)(cid:343)(cid:508) the mainte-
`nance of e-commerce platforms, including use of “mazon(cid:514)s
`platform (cid:507)as to PlayLearn and Comfortscape(cid:508)(cid:498) (cid:507)(cid:344)(cid:508) the use of
`“mazon(cid:514)s fulillment services (cid:507)as to PlayLearn and Com-
`fortscape(cid:508)(cid:498) (cid:507)(cid:345)(cid:508) serving as the owner or oicer of an entity po-
`tentially subject to jurisdiction (cid:507)as to Maso(cid:508)(cid:498) and (cid:507)(cid:346)(cid:508) sales to a
`related, but distinct, entity that, in turn, has contacts with
`Texas (cid:507)as to Creative Kids(cid:508). The court examines each in turn.
`A. Defendants PlayLearn and Comfortscape
`PlayLearn argues that plaintif atempts to establish juris-
`diction over every defendant in every state merely by virtue
`of each defendant(cid:514)s e-commerce sites, which are equally ac-
`cessible and usable from anywhere in the country. See gener-
`ally Doc. (cid:343)(cid:343). In support of its motion, PlayLearn provided the
`declaration of its director of operations, Gabriel Newhouse.
`Doc. (cid:343)(cid:343)-(cid:344). That declaration states, in relevant part, that the
`product in question was available for sale on PlayLearn(cid:514)s own
`e-commerce website and on “mazon(cid:514)s e-commerce platform.
`Id. at (cid:344). Importantly, sales to Texas residents were only made
`
`
`
`
`
`- (cid:349) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 915
`
`through “mazon and were (cid:515)fulilled by “mazon,(cid:516) meaning
`that “mazon stored the product in “mazon(cid:514)s facilities and
`(cid:515)picked, packed, shipped, and provided customer service for
`th[ose] products.(cid:516) Id. at (cid:344)-(cid:345). “s noted above, it is unknown
`whether “mazon performed any of those functions in Texas.
`Comfortscape argues that it has no contacts with Texas
`other than its presence on “mazon(cid:514)s e-commerce platform
`and sales fulilled by “mazon, and that those contacts are in-
`suicient to establish personal jurisdiction. Doc. (cid:345)(cid:351) at (cid:346).
`Plaintif argues that PlayLearn and Comfortscape cannot
`hide behind “mazon because “mazon is merely an agent act-
`ing on their behalf. Docs. (cid:343)(cid:350) at (cid:349)-(cid:343)(cid:342) & (cid:347)(cid:351) at (cid:348)-(cid:351). Plaintif ar-
`gues, without pointing to any speciic evidence, that the prod-
`uct must have been stored in an “mazon warehouse located
`in Texas and that the fulillment services were performed in
`Texas. Plaintif atempts to distinguish PlayLearn and Com-
`fortscape(cid:514)s cited authorities but spends less time explaining
`why using “mazon(cid:514)s platform and fulillment services consti-
`tutes an intentional contact with Texas. Plaintif cites almost
`no authority to support its own arguments, and its arguments
`are unclear and unhelpful in relation to the legal framework
`at play and in relation to PlayLearn and Comfortscape(cid:514)s argu-
`ments and authorities.
`The Fifth Circuit places particular emphasis on the inten-
`tionality of contacts made over the internet. Pervasive Software
`Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, (cid:348)(cid:350)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d (cid:344)(cid:343)(cid:346), (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:349)-(cid:344)(cid:350) (cid:507)(cid:347)th Cir.
`(cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:508) (cid:507)(cid:515)In many cases where speciic jurisdiction is unconsti-
`tutional, it is not because the defendant's contacts with the fo-
`rum are (cid:513)insuicient(cid:498)(cid:514) after all one may be enough. Often the
`diiculty is not the lack of contacts but rather that such con-
`tacts that exist do not count because they have not been estab-
`lished purposefully by the defendant.(cid:516)(cid:508). Therefore, (cid:515)website
`interactivity is important only insofar as it relects commercial
`activity, and then only insofar as that commercial activity
`demonstrates purposeful targeting of residents of the forum
`
`
`
`- (cid:350) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 916
`
`state or purposeful availment of the beneits or privileges of
`the forum state.(cid:516) Id. at (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:350) (cid:507)quoting Shamsuddin v. Vitamin Re-
`search Prods., (cid:345)(cid:346)(cid:348) F. Supp. (cid:344)d (cid:350)(cid:342)(cid:346), (cid:350)(cid:343)(cid:345) (cid:507)D. Md. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:346)(cid:508)(cid:508).
`The court is persuaded that (cid:515)the mere operation of a com-
`mercially interactive web site should not subject the operator
`to jurisdiction anywhere in the world.(cid:516) Guidecraft, Inc. v.
`OJCommerce, LLC, No. (cid:344)(cid:497)(cid:343)(cid:350)-cv-(cid:343)(cid:344)(cid:346)(cid:349), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:351) WL (cid:344)(cid:345)(cid:349)(cid:345)(cid:346)(cid:346)(cid:342), at *(cid:347)
`(cid:507)W.D. Pa. May (cid:344)(cid:342), (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:351)(cid:508) (cid:507)quoting Toys (cid:515)R(cid:516) Us, Inc. v. Step Two,
`S.“., (cid:345)(cid:343)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d (cid:346)(cid:346)(cid:348), (cid:346)(cid:347)(cid:346) (cid:507)(cid:345)d Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:345)(cid:508)(cid:508). That was the rationale
`and holding in Pervasive Software, though less clearly stated.
`(cid:348)(cid:350)(cid:350) F.(cid:345)d at (cid:344)(cid:344)(cid:348)-(cid:344)(cid:350). The Guidecraft case, like the instant case,
`dealt with a defendant that maintained its own e-commerce
`website and also sold products through “mazon. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:351) WL
`(cid:344)(cid:345)(cid:349)(cid:345)(cid:346)(cid:346)(cid:342), at *(cid:343). The court inds the analysis in that case persua-
`sive. Here, plaintif fails to identify any intentional contacts
`with the forum that go beyond use of the generally accessible
`“mazon e-commerce platform.
`Plaintif atempts to distinguish Guidecraft by arguing that
`that case did not involve the use of “mazon(cid:514)s fulilment ser-
`vices. The court is unpersuaded. The Fifth Circuit has held
`that it (cid:515)is unreasonable to expect that, merely by utilizing
`servers owned by a [Texas]-based company, [a foreign de-
`fendant] should have foreseen that it could be haled into a
`[Texas] court and held to account for the contents of its web-
`site.(cid:516) GreatFence.com, Inc. v ”ailey, (cid:349)(cid:344)(cid:348) Fed. “pp(cid:514)x (cid:344)(cid:348)(cid:342), (cid:344)(cid:348)(cid:343) (cid:507)(cid:347)th
`Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:350)(cid:508) (cid:507)quoting Careirst of Md., Inc. v. Careirst Pregnancy
`Ctrs., Inc., (cid:345)(cid:345)(cid:346) F.(cid:345)d (cid:345)(cid:351)(cid:342), (cid:346)(cid:342)(cid:344) (cid:507)(cid:346)th Cir. (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:342)(cid:345)(cid:508)(cid:508). In GreatFence, the
`defendant did not have any role in selecting the location of
`the servers, and the (cid:515)administration, maintenance, and up-
`keep(cid:516) of the website had occurred outside Texas. Id.
`In this case, PlayLearn and Comfortscape similarly cannot
`control where “mazon stores their products or location
`where any of the other fulillment services are performed.
`Clearly, PlayLearn and Comfortscape chose to list their prod-
`ucts on “mazon(cid:514)s e-commerce platform simply to (cid:515)proit
`
`
`
`- (cid:351) -
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00406-JCB Document 97 Filed 08/20/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 917
`
`from the wide geographic reach of the internet,(cid:516) which is not
`enough to subject them to personal jurisdiction in any state
`where the internet may reach. Guidecraft, (cid:344)(cid:342)(cid:343)(cid:351) WL (cid:344)(cid:345)(cid:349)(cid:345)(cid:346)(cid:346)(cid:342), at
`*(cid:347). Furthermore, the fact that “mazon possesses capacity to
`fulil and ship orders to any of the (cid:347)(cid:342) states further under-
`mines the idea that PlayLearn and Comfortscape(cid:514)s use of “m-
`azon(cid:514)s platform and serv