affirming the district court's decision here would result in universal jurisdiction in federal question cases apply for k two this is not the case or the record in wh about traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and you're looking at the inquiry in this case it's under the fifth amendment due process clause because we're under federal rule for k two and so the specific  is whether there was purposeful avail meant by this particular defendant of the form and we know that the form is in this case the entire united states from the source american decision and so  evaluating those contacts there are a couple of different principles that the district court moved away from that are critical in a case involving internet contents  ticketmaster case out of this court and in that case there is an explanation of what purposeful of ailment means and talks about two different prongs there's a foreseeability prong and then there's voluntariness requirement that was spelled out ticket minister did not in any way require specific targeting right it indicated that specific targeting could be a way of suggestion that your client wasn't let me put it this way the united states is one of the largest economies in the world and surely your client hope for business in the united states got business in the united states all of which is documented and so it's qualified is qualified here so there was nothing surprising about the fact that they were they ended up going to fare not a business in united states are you see just some somehow that was through so you do unilateral actions of others in some way that surprised your clients of the to be unfair for them to be accountable for any legal action that might result from their presence in the master foreseeability and voluntary yes so certainly you might say as i think your honour's articulated it would be difficult to say that it was unforeseeable that where you have united states customers that  you know there might be a form that was in the united states but i think in terms of the voluntary notice of what you really have here is a situation you have a german defendant german defender creates a german website puts that up on the web you've got people in the united states that find it that use that service and there's no suggestion in the way for the german website to block the united states customers from using the service like it's sending handbags or it's sending merchandise into the united states now this truman defended has to activity rule even if it knows that by accepting that business there as i guess some connection with the forum it is still the case that this particular german defendant has not done anything to volunteer for the jurisdiction he seemed to think this is a one shot in time snapshot as opposed to a three and a half year having activity in which are you really saying as a matter of law it's just a one town shock at the time the website is set up no that's not what we're saying at all all right s contacts and you've articulated exactly what they are we don't dispute that are insufficient to create purposeful of ailment so with the district court did you say there were insufficient  i think it's it was foreseeable to someone being your client's position after three enough years of a steady stream of of business coming from american companies and being and business being repeatedly accepting over this three year period several hundred times except business from companies in the united states to and interacting with had those companies accepting their accounts whether that constitutes sufficient activity to meet the voluntariness requirement and if it does whether this is something that would raise due process we don't concede it is but if it is you still have a safety valve you've got those who stole factors because fundamentally here what we're talking about is an inquiry of fairness due process basic fairness and so those who stole factors exist  very much for the closest of cases in particular for cases where you've got an international defendant and just briefly on that point because i want to make sure i get this out i'm sorry gestalt factors it is there play in those factors or considering the nature of the role of the underlying lawsuit here we have a trademark infringement case is there one of those factors should take into account the nature of the litigation well i i guess what i would say is in a trademark to in general you're talking about intangible harms you've got a sliding scale within those factors that says the strength of the showing is going to affect how you apply those factors so the way i would argue it is to say but you've still got that safety valve and i have to mention her forte too because we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for forte to and here is it's almost inconceivable that the rules committee when it made that w that is the party that offered it's a highly interactive website that is open to accept business throughout the world and that knowingly excess a substantial amount of quick current business directly from  consumers in a form has purposely availed itself of the benefits of that jurisdiction and can reason respect to be subject to the burdens and responsibilities of litigation in that  part of the durham defendant to take advantage of the benefit of the laws of this war that apply for a trademark at the patient for the name scrutinizer which is our client's trademark the only reason  for a trademark and say they have superior rights over your rights and they want to defeat the lawsuit on that ground to play on the merits why should that on i think you say look this is an ongoing injury this isn't a one time a van and rule doesn't really apply here that's correct we say that and we also say there's a matter  know and we have said have we not at that what it that federal question jurisdiction is on like diversity jurisdiction and that even if it is not existing at the time of the original suit subsequent  a foreign national to the united states court system however i want to point out that that in the sun case and also in the dialer case which also comment or on this in both those cases there was absolutely no connection company don't bind us secondly we believe it shows a knowledge that in fact that bit of doing business in other in other countries they expect to be doing business in other countries and they're trying to protect themselves from other countries litigation it's fine to him to do that with respect to their customers who who voluntarily sign up with them and take the service but it doesn't bind us and the point i want to make is that on the unilateral aspect of this this  found in this decision this works is it's not simply not a year a lot of thing what happens is the customer sees a rep side decides to sign up for the service what happens in the it then puts it back in the crowd and goes back down to where it's been modified or suggestions are made on how to improve it it goes back down to the the american company the customer certainly your suggestion that we should focus on the facts of this case the way in which this company does its business using its website strikes me is not unique it is the way in which  a lot of companies use their websites and so despite our efforts to focus on the facts of this case it's got a large implications for many companies to conduct business exactly the way in which this company does business i mean it will significantly increase the likelihood that companies that do business like this company does its business will be subject to the jur to say two things about that number one i think it's only fair if the companies out there holding itself out to the world and inviting inviting making itself a target inviting business from out from from the world and accepting a business from the world then they are making money from their business and they ought to be it's a matter of fairness they ought to be subject if they do something wrong or they get into some dispute with one of their customers or some other party that they have a legal relationship with such as another trademark holder it's only fair that they that they be responsible for what they've done second part of that is that they can protect themselves from this if for some reason the company doesn't want to do website so if they don't want to do business in sums some small country that's at war and they're going to do business in libya then they can they can block it and they can protect themselves and in that fashion  is the us has an interest in and forcing trademarks that those interests are maybe not present and just a consumer contract and to german company has attempted to protect itself in the consumer contract area so although the supreme court hasn't yet sort of sad  a return for their comments that were just made about trademark action respectfully i would submit that's exactly the concern here this is a german citizen a german kompany they have offered office and find out whether it spiral eyes or name had been subject to a u s trademark yes that's absolutely true but the key difference here and we have no information about whether your company did that and decided to go ahead anyway or did not do that and decided you would run the risk that's right the record is silent as to whether or not there was a search done to us but there's no reason that this company operating in germany ought to have to go and check the trademark records of every significant economy where people might buy service think that the omission of a u s p t o search shows an intention to be here regardless i would suggest it shows no particular intention to target this forum and so i think again you have to go back to the idea that this company has to be on the web to do its business and digital blocking solution that's been suggested is subject to technology we all live in remotely to computers to do our work sometimes we do it and now we are virtually a different place chill blocking may be subject to technological difficulties but there is no question that your client had it with the in its power to klein he w business and that one suit decided not to decline us business it if dan not only accepted the business or process the material that was in the process analyze the material that was proffered to wit and reported that to the u s customs it did that as a result of unilateral activity ehlers if you define your unilateral activity that way every transaction is a result of unilateral activity someone  initiate every korean's action but it strikes me from what i've written these briefs that your client was a full participant in this this isn't a case where your client did nothing but receive an order and ship of the package right this is this is a case where there was there was analysis and a report your client was was paid for that and to stay out of the united states all it had to do was was either click on the right button on an apt one because the client didn't do that here it simply conducted its business from germany on the web there was no the there was no action that was