it just is really centered around this idea of personal jurisdiction in the authority of a form state to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant and actually for the last seventy five years the due process clause of the fourteenth the men of the united states constitution quote does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in person on against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state appellant has never had any sales in illinois never had any clients in illinois never had an office in illinois never had an agent in a lot of illinois never had any property in illinois never had any transactions and was never even in illinois at any time but for the purposes of the finding itself in three years a lot of gay shit and yahshua minors this actually i don't want to spend much more  your time because of the not that difficult this is just pretty straightforward there's a lot of other issues but these are the most important ones and there's no place in the record and i defy anyone any reasonable person is not a part of the case that find any place in the record where there is good morning your honor may please the court arthur gullets or on behalf of ariel doesn't see the district court correctly found there is personal jurisdiction in this case for at least two reasons one the district court found the ari investments made its prima facia showing that there is personal jurisdiction here and to ariel capital incorrectly argues that it was entitle who had evidentiary hearing so let's start with the first point ariel capital just argued there were no contacts with the state of illinois but this is trademark infringement this is an intentional tort and you know they're going to have to do with your stick your honor in calder v jones the supreme court he establish the effects test as a way of evaluating whether there is specific jurisdiction specific which you really need to be discussing his role in against your very good which the supreme court held that knowing where the effects will be f doesn't create jurisdiction in the area where the effects are felt as ariel capital just pointed out the law hasn't change wilden stressed that fortuitous or random  said that's not enough the defendant has to act in the form walden also reaffirmed called if he jumps in while i wish you would discuss walden and not earlier cases yes national enquirer is largest circulation was in california there was more than just the reputational harm it seems to me that are more are post while in versus here a case in advanced technical ordinances times kind of shuts down this argument could you talk about that case y advance tactical the facts were different as well events tactical dealt with a different species of trademark infringement advance tactical dealt with a defendant who made allegedly misleading statements about its own product on its website so this court correctly held that in light of walden to hail that defendant into court in indiana where the plaintiff was located was the kind of random or attenuated contact the lack of the lack of meaningful contact that the supreme court said was not enough and while that events tactical was did not involved the reputational harm that is at risk or in place when you listen to procreate and name so within the are different species of trademark infringement there is misappropriation of a name under section thirty two under section forty three a one a and then there's misleading statements about a product under forty three a one b which is what you had in advance tactical it's a different case it  the defendant did not reach out to an indiana plaintiff and misappropriate its name subjecting that plaintiff to the risk of reputational harm walden but if i go back to judges or groups point about wald n there are a couple triple quotes from the supreme court that tied together calder and walden in walden the court said quote the crux of color was the reputation based the facts of the alleged liable and that's what it that connected the defendant to california the walden court said the strength of that connection was largely a function of the nature of the libel tort and finally the court said the defendant's intentional tort actually occurred in california and that's what walton said about calder so in light of that they're both good law and as this court has observed in the past in trademark cases the most corrosive harmony trademark case again the kind where you're taking the other side's name holder the senior mark holder loses the ability to protect its reputation to protect its goods and services the potential damage to good will that reputation based impact is  in the reputational effects would absolutely be based here in the same way that in calder v jones the defendant was i believe a celebrity whose business was centered in hollywood ariel investments is a major financial firm based in chicago one of the financial centers of the based on the fact findings of the district court occurred here in illinois that's the contact turning to those facts in light of color and walden and advanced tactical there's no dispute about the key facts here the district court followed that ariel capital ran a google search for the the term aerial found a company called aerial wealth advisors wasn't sure if he found anyone else the district court found that the that the defendant had been in this business for over twenty years that mr bray had seen john rogers the founder of ariel investments in t v even interviews that he had received e mails from maryland vestments that he had attended conferences sponsored by ariel investments that he had read periodicals in which burial investments advertised prominently based on those undisputed facts no dispute about those things the district court concluded that it was highly  likely break came across ariel investments name and presence in the investment advisory field on repeated occasions during his twenty plus years working in that same field the district court went on to say that mr brace claim to the contrary was not credible quote evidence provides a reason to doubt braze claim that he was ignorant of ariel investments prior an extensive use of the term personal jurisdiction your honour's is all about fairness and when a defendant misappropriate the name of another party and subjects them to those reputation based effects they should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court in that forum that is fair now i can also turn to the question of an evidentiary hearing the ariel capital responds to all of this by arguing that it was entitle to a hearing but the district court correctly decided that it was not and that is that decision was right for at least six reasons number one the as i just explained the material facts here aren't in dispute the law is that a party contesting personal jurisdiction may be entitled to a hearing if there's  facts there aren't any disputed facts here there's a fight over what inference to draw from them but the district court can do that oh second this court held and file a post that where the district court needs to assess credibility it can do one of two things it can either allow cross examination or allow pre hearing discovery in this case judge can only allowed pre hearing discovery and the fact that ariel capital didn't take advantage of it no is not doesn't mean the district court made a mistake it means ariel capital is to blame in fact infile as this court said that the failure to take advantage was not the district court's fault and cast no cloud over the district court's handling of the matter third even if there was a right to an evidentiary hearing ariel capital forfeited that right this is a right that can be forfeited like most any other aerial capital sat on its rights until it learned that it didn't like the district court's decision and then said wait we'd like an evidentiary hearing that's a forfeiture for ariel capital can't show any prejudice ariel capital has never pointed out even in its briefs to this court what facts would have been a deuced at such a hearing that would have changed the outcome because the facts aren't in dispute fifth we had a trial in this case if anything the trial was a hearing and the evidence at trial confirmed by a preponderance of the evidence the standard exactly the same things the judge can only found in denying the motion to dismiss when mr gray was on the stand he conceded the same points that he ran the search for ariel that he found ariel wealth advisors that he had twenty years of experience in the industry that he attended our conferences and all those things so the district court concluded quote contrary to braise contention he knew of ari investments prior to founding ariel capital advisors and was aware that he was adopting a name similar to the one ariel investments already using in the same general field and the court further said that the question of personal jurisdiction quote did not present a close question in this cour up what he said in his opening comments for the most part but it was a little over simplified i can explain the aerial capitals website states that does business throughout the united states mr bray testified that expanding his business was an is the former state the quote focal point of the alleged conduct in the harm suffered could you point to me where the district judge found this to be the focal point of the alleged conduct the district court found that mr bray knowingly misappropriated our name inflicting harm or potential reputational harm and ariel investments whole as a matter of policy the law ought not require a holder of i intellectual property to go to the home forum of one who has in effect reached into the holder's home for him to take its property so a judge can n found based on the undisputed facts of course that it sounds like an argument for amending the statute to authorize nationwide service of process as the securities laws do and the other trust laws and rico but that's relying on the law now you seem to be the core of the district judges opinion but it really is just an argument for a statutory amendment to things your honor first respectfully in response the judge farms question was pointing out where the district court made a factual finding or an inference about the contacts between ariel capital and illinois as to the the legal argument and the end what the statute allows again the difference is that in this species of trademark infringement unlike in advance tactical we have misappropriation of a name which directly threatens the reputation of ariel investments which is exactly the kind of intentional torte that the supreme court in polgar has reaffirm walden said in essence takes place in the forum of the company whose being good reputation is threatened that's the law from the supreme court that that is enough so we're not asking for a change in the law if anything if the court needs to differentiate between this case and cases like advanced technical we respectfully submit that the difference is in the different species of trademark infringement one where you knowingly take the name of the plaintiffs and the other where you just make misleading statements about your own products and services that just so happen to if impacts someone else which is what you had an advanced isn't that what you're arguing that the harm to you felt where your business was located a our argument but the difference is beat it how do we get there and in this case the plaintiffs sorry the defendant knowingly took our name that's not what happened in advanced tactical and advanced tactical the defendant made a statement about the source of its paint balls where it was getting that it didn't say anything about the plaintiff so when the plaintiff sued the defendant in indiana this court ultimately concluded that in light of walden there weren't enough contacts with indiana here based on the factual findings of the district court again facts that aren't in dispute judge conelly determined that mr bray and ariel capital knew about ariel investments when he chose t name ariel he did that intentionally and that kind of infringement that misappropriation of a name is what makes it again in the words of walden makes it as though the tort itself took place in illinois approaching the end of my time i can address the issue of the jury trial and the costs if the court would like as far as the jury trial goes there is no seventh amendment right to a jury trial when all the plaintiff is seeking is a permanent injunction and discouragement of prophets even if the court disagreed with the ninth circuit and said that discouragement of profits was a legal remedy there's no error prejudice here because the district court didn't award any profits as for costs the district court has wide discretion in awarding costs we start with a review of the statutory authority under rule fifty four there's a strong presumption in favor of awarding cost to the prevailing party there is no doubt that ariel investments was the prevailing party here it prevailed on all four counts that went to trial it obtained a permanent injunction which is a substantial change in the legal relationship of the parties so the district court went on to award costs in this case the cost of copying electronic records under section to make it so human beings can put their eyes on them are analogous to copying that was all within the district court's discretion it's consistent with the third circuit's ruling of this court hasn't spoken in depth on the issue that the other circuits have either of the third circuit or even expanded on it so the award of costs in this case was within the district court's discretion thank you  of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence in the seventh circuit and the united states i am still scratching my head and can not figure out why this district court was hell bent not to relinquish jurisdiction in this matter despite all facts the contrary and i don't know if i'll ever never know but i'll just again rest that argument for you to decide with regard to cost i would just say this there's of little family in south florida with one hundred