Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01791/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01791-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 09cv1791

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AQUA LOGIC, INC., a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1791 H (BLM)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

vs.

AQUATIC LOGIC, INC., an Illinois

Corporation; DOMENIC VITRO; and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Aqua Logic, Inc. filed a complaint against Aquatic Logic, Inc. and Domenic

Vitro (“Defendants”) on August 17, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 4.) A hearing on that motion was set for

October 5, 2009 and rescheduled for October 13, 2009. On September 25, 2009, Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 25.)

On October 8, 2009, the Court issued an order requesting that the parties be prepared to

address the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants at the October 13, 2009 hearing.

(Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction on October 12, 2009. (Doc. No. 38.) The Court held a hearing

focused on Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion on October 13, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. in

courtroom 13. Cindy A. Brand and Ross G. Simmons appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and

Benjamin Davidson appeared on behalf of Defendants. Both Plaintiff and Defendants had an

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 09cv1791

opportunity to discuss Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal

jurisdiction. On October 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a supplemental briefing in opposition to

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and a request for judicial notice. (Doc. Nos. 45 & 46.)

Defendants did not file a reply. The Court exercises its discretion to decide this matter on the

papers pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for

judicial notice to the extent the offered documents are properly subject to judicial notice.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Aqua Logic, Inc. is a California corporation. (Doc. No. 37 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff is

the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 2,353,216 and has used the Aqua

Logic mark and trade name for almost twenty years. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff is a product

supplier in the aquatic industry. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Defendant Aquatic Logic, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business in

Lisle, Illinois. (Doc. No. 14 ¶ 2.) The name Aquatic Logic was trademarked on September

10, 2008, and the company was incorporated under the same name in Illinois on April 27,

2009. (Id. ¶ 4-5.) Defendant Aquatic Logic specializes in the sale of various water

treatment products used for outdoor ponds. (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendant Domenic Vitro

(“Defendant Vitro”) alleges that virtually all of Defendant Aquatic Logic’s sales occur

through distributors or manufacturing representatives rather than through individual stores

or customers. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Defendant Vitro is the founder and president of Aquatic Logic, Inc. (Id. ¶ 2.) He is

a resident and citizen of Illinois. (Id. ¶ 1.) On or around September, 2008, Defendant Vitro

launched the website “www.aquaticlogic.com.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Vitro also personally owns the websites “www.aquaticlogic.org,” “www.aquaticlogic.net”

and “www.bestbuypondsupply.com.” (Doc. No. 1 Ex. 5; Doc. No. 47 Ex. B.)

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 09cv1791

The website “www.aquaticlogic.com” is passive–customers cannot order products

directly from the website. (Doc. No. 14 ¶ 6.) Instead, interested parties must place orders

over the phone. (Id.) The website “www.bestbuypondsupply.com” is active–customers

can place orders for Aquatic Logic, Inc. products directly through the website. (Doc. No.

47 Ex. A.) 

Defendants allege that they have placed advertisements in nationwide magazines,

but have never placed an advertisement in a publication directed specifically at

Californians. (Doc. No. 14 ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that many of the publications in which

Defendants advertise are based in California. (Doc. No. 37 ¶¶ 8-9, 11.) These publications

include Pond Trade Magazine News, Watershapes Plus, Pondbiz, and Water Garden News. 

(Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants list their products for sale on the

website of Laugna Koi Ponds, which is located in Laguna Beach, California, and that

consumers can order Aquatic Logic products directly from the website. (Id. ¶ 7.) Ross

Simmons, one of Plaintiff’s attorneys, states that he ordered Defendants’ product from

Laguna Koi Pond’s website on October 1, 2009. (Doc. No. 35 ¶¶ 1-2.)

With respect to product sales, Defendant Domenic Vitro alleges that, to his

knowledge, “Aquatic Logic has only made one sale to a company located in the State of

California during the year of its existence, for only about $500.” (Doc. No. 14 ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff has presented evidence of one Aquatic Logic sale to Sea Life Designs, a dba for

Laguna Koi Ponds, for $595.25. (Doc. No. 37 ¶ 12.) Plaintiff is aware of this sale because

the check was inadvertently sent to Plaintiff instead of Defendants. (Doc. No. 38 at 3.)

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction - Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). The party seeking to invoke the

court’s jurisdiction “has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” Data Disc, Inc.

v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1977). To survive a motion to

dismiss, a plaintiff must submit materials that “demonstrate facts which support a finding

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 09cv1791

of jurisdiction.” Id. “Conflicts between the parties over statements contained in affidavits

must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374

F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).

“When no federal statute specifically defines the extent of personal jurisdiction,”

district courts will “look to the law of the state where [the court] sits.” Menken v. Emm,

503 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). California law provides that a court “may exercise

jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United

States.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10. Consistent with Constitutional due process, a court

may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if he has “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. Washington, 326

U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotes omitted).

There are two forms of personal jurisdiction – general jurisdiction and specific

jurisdiction. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008). General

jurisdiction turns on the defendant’s contacts with the forum, while specific jurisdiction is

based on the relationship between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims. 

Menken, 503 F.3d at 1056-57. The Court considers each type in turn.

II. General Jurisdiction

“For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant,” the defendant must

engage in “continuous and systematic general business contacts that approximate physical

presence in the forum state.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (quotation marks and

citations omitted). “Longevity, continuity, volume, economic impact, physical presence,

and integration into the state’s regulatory or economic markets are among the indicia of

such a presence.” Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir.

2006). “Factors to be taken into consideration are 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.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc.

v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). “This is an exacting standard,

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 09cv1791

as it should be, because a finding of general jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled

into court in the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world.” 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801.

Plaintiff argues for general jurisdiction over Defendants based on their presence on

the internet, the sale of their products on the Laguna Koi Ponds website, and their

advertisements in California publications. (Doc. No. 38 at 4.) These contacts, however,

fall far short of showing that Defendants have engaged in “continuous and systematic

general business contacts that approximate physical presence in the forum state.” 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly,

the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate facts showing that general

jurisdiction over Defendants is consistent with due process. 

III. Specific Jurisdiction

To determine whether the Court may exercise specific jurisdiction based on the

relationship between Plaintiff’s claims and the forum, the Court applies a three-prong test. 

For specific jurisdiction to be proper: “(1) [t]he non-resident defendant must purposefully

direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or

perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting

activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the

claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities;

and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice.” 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801-02. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the

first two prongs of the test are satisfied. Id. at 802. “If the plaintiff succeeds in satisfying

both of the first two prongs, the burden then shifts to the defendant to ‘present a compelling

case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. (citing Burger King

Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78 (1985)).

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 - 09cv1791

A. Purposeful Availment or Direction

“We often use the phrase ‘purposeful availment,’ in shorthand fashion, to include

both purposeful availment and purposeful direction, but availment and direction are, in fact,

two distinct concepts. A purposeful availment analysis is most often used in suits sounding

in contract. A purposeful direction analysis, on the other hand, is most often used in suits

sounding in tort.” Schwartzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s

complaint alleges trademark infringement and other related claims which are more akin to

tort than contract actions. See Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 575 F.3d

981, 985-86 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that a copyright infringement claim is often

characterized as a tort). A purposeful direction analysis is therefore appropriate.

Courts evaluate purposeful direction under a three-part “effects” test derived from

the Supreme Court’s decision in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The test “requires

that the defendant allegedly have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at

the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the

forum state.” Dole Foods Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (2002);

Schwartzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803.

1. Intentional Act

The Ninth Circuit “‘construe[s] ‘intent’ . . . as referring to an intent to perform an

actual, physical act in the real world, rather than an intent to accomplish a result or

consequence of that act.’” Brayton, 575 F.3d at 986 (quoting Schwartzenegger, 374 F.3d at

806). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intentionally placed advertisements in

magazines and trade journals based in California, advertised on the website of Laguna Koi

Ponds, which is located in California, and made at least one sale to Laguna Koi Ponds in

California. (Doc. No. 37 ¶¶ 7-9, 12.) Defendants allegedly engaged in all of these acts

after being notified of the conflict with Plaintiff’s registered trademark. (Doc. No. 38 at 7.) 

Based on this information, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented sufficient facts

to satisfy the “intentional act” element of the effects test.

///

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 - 09cv1791

2. Expressly Aimed

It is well settled in the Ninth Circuit that “maintenance of a passive website alone

cannot satisfy the express aiming prong.” Brayton, 575 F.3d at 986. However, “operating

even a passive website in conjunction with ‘something more’–conduct directly targeting the

forum–is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002); see Brayton, 575 F.3d at 986. In reference

to the “something more” required for express aiming, the Brayton court stated that

defendant “had every reason to believe prospective clients in Southern California would see

the website–indeed, attracting new business was the point. [Defendant] also knew its

conduct was likely to confuse and deceive potential clients as to the source of the . . .

material.” Brayton, 575 F.3d at 988. Similarly, in this case, Defendants had every reason

to believe that prospective customers in Southern California would see the advertisements

they placed in California-based publications and Laguna Koi Pond’s California-based

website. As was the case in Brayton, attracting new business was the clear purpose of

Defendants’ actions. Moreover, Defendants allegedly placed the advertisements with

knowledge of the similarity of the two marks and were therefore aware their conduct could

confuse potential customers in the forum. (See Doc. No. 38 at 7.) Plaintiff also alleges that

Defendant Vitro owns the active website located at “www.bestbuypondsupply.com” and

that California customers can buy Defendants’ products directly from the website. (Doc.

No. 47 Ex. A.) Finally, Defendants have made at least one sale to a customer in California. 

(Doc. No. 14 ¶ 8.) Taken together, these facts lead the Court to conclude that the express

aiming prong is satisfied. 

3. Causing Foreseeable Harm in the Forum State

The third element of the effects test “is satisfied when defendant's intentional act has

foreseeable effects in the forum.” Brayton, 575 F.3d at 988. It does not require that the

brunt or even the bulk of the harm be suffered in the forum. Id. In this case, Plaintiff is a

California corporation with its principal place of business in Southern California. Plaintiff

contends that Defendants intentionally advertised and sold products with an allegedly

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 - 09cv1791

infringing mark in California. The foreseeable effect of these actions is that Plaintiff will

be harmed in the forum. Accordingly, the Court finds that the final prong of the effects test

is satisfied.

B. Relation to Forum-Related Activities

“Part two of our analysis requires that the litigation arise out of or relate to the

defendant's forum-related activities. This step explores the relationship between the cause

of plaintiff's harm and the defendant's acts identified as creating purposeful contacts with

the forum state.” Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff’s

claims arise from Defendants’ alleged infringement on Plaintiff’s trademark and trade

name. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have used the allegedly infringing name and

mark in California-based publications and on a California-based website. Additionally,

Plaintiff argues that potential customers in California can view Defendants’ allegedly

infringing website, “www.aquaticlogic.com.” Since Defendants have used the allegedly

infringing mark to solicit business in California, thereby creating the possibility of

confusion in the forum, the Court concludes that the litigation relates to Defendants’ forumrelated activities. 

C. Reasonableness

Finally, the Court must determine the reasonableness of its assertion of jurisdiction

over Defendants by considering “such factors as: the extent of defendant's purposeful

interjection into the forum state; the burden on the defendant; the plaintiff's interest in

convenient and effective relief; the most efficient forum for judicial resolution of the

dispute; the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; and the extent of the conflict

with the sovereignty of the defendant's state.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1364 (9th

Cir. 1990). Here, Defendants have failed to “present a compelling case” that the exercise

of jurisdiction is unreasonable. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 477. Plaintiff is a

California corporation that alleges it has suffered harm in the forum. Plaintiff has

presented evidence that Defendants sell products on a California business’ website, that

they market their products in California publications, and that they ship products directly to

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 - 09cv1791

California. Defendants have presented no evidence that they face a particular burden

litigating in the forum or that another forum would be more efficient for judicial resolution

of the dispute. Accordingly, the Court finds that the exercise of jurisdiction over

Defendants is reasonable.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2009

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record

Case 3:09-cv-01791-H-BLM Document 49 Filed 10/29/09 Page 9 of 9