U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Summaries for November 15, 2013

Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Docket: 13-2559	Opinion Date: November 14, 2013
Judge: Posner
Areas of Law: Commercial Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

Kraft sued Cracker Barrel Old Country Store for trademark infringement, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, and obtained a preliminary injunction against the sale of food products to grocery stores under the name Cracker Barrel, which is a registered trademark of Kraft. Kraft has been selling cheese in grocery stores under that name for more than 50 years. Kraft did not challenge CBOCS’s right to sell the products under the name Cracker Barrel in CBOCS’s restaurants, in its “country stores” that adjoin the restaurants, or by mail order or online. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the similarity of the logos, the products, and of the channels of distribution.

http://j.st/ymS
View Case On: Justia

Koss Corporation v. Max Sound Corporation - Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Lanham Act

KOSS CORPORATION v. MAX SOUND CORPORATION
Case No. 12-CV-00854
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
April 28, 2013

Plaintiff Koss Corporation sued defendant Max Sound Corporation for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., and Wisconsin common law. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, for an order transferring venue to the Central District of California pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).

At the time plaintiff brought this suit, defendant was using the slogan "Hearing is Believing" to promote its software on its website at maxsound.com and on social media websites including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

While defendant may have been using its website to promote its software, it was not asking anyone for anything and so was not engaging in solicitation. Therefore, plaintiff does not establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction under § 801.05(4)(a). Cf. Marvel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Koba Internet Sales, LLC, No. 11-C-961, 2012 WL 2466772, *4 (E.D. Wis. June 27, 2012) (finding jurisdiction under § 801.05(4)(a) where defendant had sold several thousand dollars worth of goods in Wisconsin.

Even if the requirements of § 801.05(4)(a) were met, the Court concluded that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. Due process requires that a defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).

Plaintiff contended that this requirement is met based on the "express aiming test" announced in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), which authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant committed an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that the effects of the act would be felt in that state. Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 703.

The Court concluded that it cannot constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. Thus, they need not consider defendant's alternative motion to transfer venue.

THEREFORE, IT WAS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Docket #12) is GRANTED, and defendant's alternative motion to transfer venue (Docket #12) is DENIED AS MOOT.

The Case was ordered DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5915418258870932309&q=Facebook&hl=en&as_sdt=4,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2013, last visited 10/08/2013