Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03112/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03112-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The record suggests that the Portfolio Brains, LLC transaction was with one

of Tucows wholly owned subsidiaries, Tucows.com Co. See Declaration of Deepa Krishna,

Ex. B at 4. In addition, this exhibit suggests that Tucows.com Co. sold domain names to

Portfolio Brains, LLC, rather than acquiring the domain names from Portfolio Brains, as is

suggested in Plaintiffs’ opposition brief. Accordingly, the Court shall not permit discovery

on this transaction. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANN JENKINS, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TUCOWS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-03112 JSW

ORDER GRANTING LIMITED

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction currently is pending

before the Court and under submission. Having considered the parties’ papers, and having

considered their positions at oral argument, the Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery

is warranted. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n. 24 (9th

Cir. 1977). 

At oral argument, Plaintiffs requested jurisdictional discovery on: (1) Tucows’

customers in California, including what percentage of its total customer base is within

California; (2) information about Tucows’ domain name portfolio and revenues generated by

those domain names, including a transaction with Portfolio Brains, LLC1; (3) information about

Tucows’ business partners in California; and (4) information about the alleged thief who

effected the transfer of the domain name at issue. 

Case 3:07-cv-03112-JSW Document 47 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court shall permit Plaintiffs to engage in discovery on the first three topics. 

Information about the alleged thief, however, is unrelated to the jurisdictional issue.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall be permitted to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery on these

three issues to be completed, i.e. requests served and responses received, by no later than

November 14, 2008. Upon completion of discovery, Plaintiffs may file a supplemental

opposition brief to the motion to dismiss not to exceed twelve (12) pages, by no later than

December 1, 2008. Tucows may file a supplemental reply brief not to exceed twelve (12) pages

by December 15, 2008. The Court shall then take the matter under submission and rule on the

papers, unless it deems that an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03112-JSW Document 47 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 2