Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01194/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01194-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 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

 1In a Motion to Dismiss, the court must presume all factual allegations of the Complaint to be

true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Usher v. City of Los Angeles,

828 F.2d 556,561(9th Cir.1987).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

1496815 Ontario, Inc. et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1194-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants 1496815 Ontario, Inc.'s and Bryan Moyle's

(collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) Plaintiff Best Western International

Inc.'s ("Plaintiff" or "BWI") Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(2) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15

§§ U.S.C. 1051 et seq. The Court has been briefed extensively by all parties and hereby

finds the following. 

BACKGROUND1

On or about April 15, 2002, Defendants entered into a Membership Agreement with

Plaintiff which resulted in Defendant Moyle becoming a member of Best Western,

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 14
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 -

Defendants' hotel becoming affiliated with Best Western, and the Membership Agreement

becoming the controlling contract in the relationship between the Defendants and the

Plaintiff. The Agreement included the following clauses:

This Membership Application and Agreement shall be governed and construed

according to the laws of the state of Arizona, unless any obligations under this

Membership Application and Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable

under such laws, in which event the laws of the jurisdiction whose law can

apply to and validate the obligations under the Membership Application and

Agreement shall apply. This Membership Application and Agreement shall

be deemed executed in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Applicant acknowledges that Best Western is headquartered in Phoenix,

Arizona, that the majority of Best Western's records and employees are in

Phoenix, Arizona, and that Phoenix, Arizona is the most convenient locale for

actions between Best Western and Applicant.

UNLESS WAIVED BY BEST WESTERN IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE

COURTS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OR

FEDERAL, SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND

DETERMINE ALL CLAIMS, DISPUTES AND ACTIONS ARISING FROM

OR RELATED TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS, THIS MEMBERSHIP

APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OR TO ANY RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AND VENUE SHALL BE IN THE

COURTS LOCATED IN MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. APPLICANT

EXPRESSLY CONSENTS AND SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF

SAID COURTS AND TO VENUE BEING IN MARICOPA COUNTY,

ARIZONA. (Emphasis included)

Best Western International, Inc. Membership Application and Agreement, par. 37-38.

Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants owned and operated the hotel formerly known

as the Best Western Georgian Inn located in Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada. BWI is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona with its headquarters

located in Phoenix, Arizona. BWI operates a membership association consisting of

individually owned and operated hotels. The rights and obligations of its members are

determined by the membership and are set forth in the Membership Agreement and in the

Bylaws. Each Best Western member is authorized to use the Best Western trade name,

trademarks, logos, and other similar identifying symbols in connection with its hotel and

pursuant to a limited, non-exclusive license as set forth in the Membership Agreement. The

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 14
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

 2Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants had agreed that "any portion of any sign displaying a

Best Western [Mark] is and shall remain the property of Best Western." Defendants further agreed to

"transfer title of all such portions of signs, whether now owned or acquired in the future, to Best Western"

and upon termination of membership, Defendants agreed to "remove from public view and cease using"

all Best Western Marks and all other references to Best Western within fifteen days of the date of

termination.

- 3 -

members adopt and have the authority to change the Best Western Bylaws, Membership

Agreement, and Rules and Regulations. 

On or about March 9, 2004, in accordance with applicable provisions of the

Membership Agreement, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations, BWI notified Defendants that

their membership had been terminated for failure to timely pay their account. Pursuant to

such termination, BWI advised Defendants that they needed to discontinue use of the Best

Western Marks.2

 

Notwithstanding the Agreement to do otherwise, Defendants failed to remove the Best

Western signs and collateral items containing the Best Western Marks, Defendants continued

to effectively hold the Hotel out to the public as a Best Western member, and Defendants

continued to advertise their Hotel on the internet and on reservation systems as the "Best

Western Georgian Inn".

Consequently, on June 6, 2004, BWI filed a Complaint in this Court (Doc. 1) for

breach of contract, federal trademark infringement, and unfair competition under the

Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), and

related common law and statutory causes of action arising from the Membership Agreement

entered into between the parties and the ensuing conduct. On June 9, 2004, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) against the Defendants. Defendants responded

to the Complaint on September 14, 2004, by filing an Answer (Doc. 5). On November 8,

2004, the parties stipulated to a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6) against the Defendants

whereby the Defendants were enjoined from displaying and advertising Best Western

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 14
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

 3The preliminary injunction became effective upon Plaintiff's posting of a bond in the amount

of $1000.00.

 4 (Doc. 37) is a duplicate Response to (Doc. 33); however, it includes an affidavit attachment.

- 4 -

Trademarks.3

 In April 2005, this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for the purpose of

settlement. After two Motions to Continue the Settlement Conference, the Magistrate Judge

entered an Order vacating the final date selected for the settlement conference (Doc. 24). 

On June 20, 2006, Defendants filed the current Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) Plaintiff's

Complaint. In the motion, Defendants contend that (1) the Arthur Wishart Act applies in this

case to render the forum selection clause void; (2) the court lacks personal jurisdiction

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(2); and (3) the claims of Best Western International Inc., filed

under the Lanham Act are due to be dismissed on the basis that the Act does not have

extraterritorial application in this case. On July 11, 2000, BWI filed a Response (Doc. 36)4

and on July 24, 2006, Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 38).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)

When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of

establishing the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,

248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). When the court relies on affidavits and discovery

materials without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing

of jurisdiction to avoid the motion to dismiss. Ochoa v. J.B. Martin and Sons Farms, Inc.,

287 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir.2002). The allegations in the plaintiff's complaint must be

taken as true and any conflicts in the facts presented by the parties must be resolved in the

plaintiff's favor. Id.

“Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing jurisdiction, the law

of the state in which the district court sits applies.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v.

Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2003) (Harris). Arizona's long-arm

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 4 of 14
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 -

statute allows for “personal jurisdiction over parties... to the maximum extent permitted by

the Constitution of [Arizona] and the Constitution of the United States.” Ariz. R. Civ. P.

4.2(a). Thus, the Court “need only determine whether personal jurisdiction in this case would

meet the requirements of due process .” Harris, 328 F.3d at 1129 (quoting Brainerd v.

Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th Cir.1989)). Absent traditional

bases for personal jurisdiction (physical presence, domicile, or consent), due process is

satisfied when a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum “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). 

B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(1)

A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person...is waived (A) if omitted from a

motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made

by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment

thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course. 

Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that contrary to the contention of the

Defendants, the Arthur Wishart Act, a Canadian franchising law, does not apply in this case.

Therefore, the forum selection clause contained in the Membership Agreement will be

undisturbed by said Canadian franchising law. 

Defendants contend that "[b]y its very terms, the [Ontario] franchising law voids any

contract clause selecting or mandating a forum for court disputed outside the Province of

Ontario." Defendants further contend that their hotel qualifies as a franchise under the

Arthur Wishart Act and, accordingly, should be afforded protection under the act regarding

the forum selection clause in the Membership Agreement in dispute. However, Best Western

contends that it is in fact a non-profit corporation operating a co-operative membership

association. The members adopt and have the authority to change the Best Western Bylaws,

Membership Agreement, and Rules and Regulations; and BWI does not provide franchises.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 5 of 14
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

 5This is a citation to the Arthur Wishart Act.

 6 In the only case in which the Act was cited in this country, the Plaintiffs noted that the Arthur

Wishart Act did not apply if the business operated by the dealer or franchisee was not located in Ontario,

Canada. The Dealers agreed with the assessment and stipulated to dismiss the claim under the Act. Volvo

Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM Equipment Co., Inc. 236 F.Supp.2d 536, 554 (W.D.N.C.,2002).

 7Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b), if the defense is one which must be made by motion,

it may be so made only if the motion is filed before the pleading. (Emphasis added)

- 6 -

Consequently, the Arthur Wishart Act would not apply. See S.O. 2000, c.3, s15

.

Furthermore, for the Court to determine whether or not the Defendants' hotel qualifies as a

franchise under foreign law, the Court would need to look to sources outside of the

pleadings, an indicator that the issue is more appropriate for the summary judgment stage of

litigation.

The Defendants have not provided the Court with any Ninth Circuit authority, or any

other authority, to support the application of the Act to the case at hand. Moreover, it has

come to the Court's attention that the Act, the only foundation upon which the Defendants

base their argument that the forum selection clause should be rendered void, has yet to be

applied to a case such as this in the United States.6

 Accordingly, the Court has no basis to

apply this Act to the present case.

I. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(2)–Personal Jurisdiction

While Defendants allege that this Court does not have the power to properly exercise

personal jurisdiction over them, the Plaintiff contends that Defendants waived their right to

object to personal jurisdiction by (1) failing to validly raise personal jurisdiction as a defense

in either their Answer or a Motion to Dismiss filed prior to the Answer7

; (2) by making a

general appearance, and (3) by conduct inferring Defendants' acquiescence to the exercise

of this Court's jurisdiction. 

First, Plaintiff avers that Defendants missed their first bite at the apple when they

failed to validly raise their objection to personal jurisdiction in their Answer or, in the

alternative, in a motion filed prior to the Answer. Defendants refute this assertion by

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 6 of 14
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 The objection to personal jurisdiction must be raised as an affirmative defense in the

Answer or by motion prior to the filing of the Answer. Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b).

 9 It is also telling that if the Court accepted Defendants' argument regarding their

Answer, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(g) as it relates to personal jurisdiction would effectively be

meaningless. 

- 7 -

attempting to import significance to the following sweeping statement included in their

Answer, "[a]s affirmative defenses, Defendants allege accord and satisfaction, waiver,

estoppel, statute of limitations, laches, failure of consideration and all other affirmative

defenses that may arise during the pendency of this action." (emphasis included). The Court

notes that the word "jurisdiction" is not included in the string of affirmative defenses

included in this statement. Based on the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b), 12(h),8

 and

without supporting authority demonstrating otherwise, the Court does not find the language

included in Defendants' Answer an adequate objection to personal jurisdiction.9

 If the Court

accepted as sufficient the Defendants' general sweeping objection to include the defenses not

specifically raised, such as jurisdiction, it would render the federal requirement promulgated

in Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(1) meaningless. 

Plaintiff further contends that Defendants waived their objection to personal

jurisdiction by making a general appearance in the case. Defendants can waive the defect

of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing generally without first challenging the defect

in a preliminary motion. Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982)(citing

Amen v. Dearborn, 532 F.2d 554, 558, n.7 (6th Cir. 1976))(Jurisdiction attaches if a

defendant makes a voluntary general appearance, as by filing an answer through an attorney).

Here, Defendants filed their Answer on September 17, 2004. Furthermore, after reviewing

the pleadings in their entirety, it is evident to the Court that the Defendants have acquiesced

to and even requested the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction since the conception of this law

suit. Defendants have previously filed with the Court an Answer (Doc. 5), a Stipulation for

Entry of Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 6) wherein the Defendants agreed that the Court may

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 7 of 14
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 -

enter a preliminary injunction against them, a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan (Doc.

11) wherein the parties agree that there are no parties to the case that are not subject to this

Court's Jurisdiction (emphasis added), a Stipulation to a Settlement Conference (Doc. 13),

motions to continue, and the present Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33). Accordingly, the Court

finds the Defendants' overall conduct illustrates that they have waived their objection to

personal jurisdiction and that the Court has personal jurisdiction in this case. Because the

Court has established that Defendants effectively waived their objection to personal

jurisdiction and clearly made a general voluntarily appearance in this case, it is not necessary

to continue with a minimum contacts analysis.

II. Motion to Dismiss Lanham Act Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ.

P 12(b)(1), asserting that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1051-1127, claims. Defendants argue that because the alleged violations took place

in Canada, by a Canadian company, this Court cannot entertain Plaintiff's claims. Thus, the

Court must decide whether there is subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Lanham Act

claims.

In Wells Fargo, the Ninth Circuit held “the Lanham Act's coverage of foreign

activities may be analyzed under the test for extraterritorial application of the federal antitrust

laws set forth in Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings

Ass'n, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976) (Timberlane I)." Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo

Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 427-428 (9th Cir. 1977). In Timberlane, the Ninth Circuit

identified three criteria that must be satisfied to apply Lanham Act to claims originating

extraterritorially. First, the alleged violations must create some effect on American foreign

commerce; second, the effect must be sufficiently great to present a cognizable injury to

plaintiffs under federal statute; and third, the interests of and links to American foreign

commerce must be sufficiently strong in relation to those of other nations to justify an

assertion of extraterritorial authority. Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 8 of 14
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 -

& Sav's Ass'n, 549 F.2d at 613-15. This third prong requires consideration of several factors.

Id. 

The first part of the Timberlane I test requires that there be some effect on American

foreign commerce, either actual or intended, before the federal courts may legitimately

exercise subject matter jurisdiction under the (antitrust) statutes. Timberlane Lumber Co. v.

Bank of America, Nat'l Trust & Sav's Ass'n, 549 F.2d at 613. Defendants contend that their

alleged violation does not effect the foreign commerce of the United States. They argue that

"effects on U.S. foreign commerce are highly unlikely to result from a Canadian leaving up

a sign in front of a hotel for a time deemed too long." (Doc. 33). Furthermore, they contend

that even if an effect on American commerce is found from their alleged continued affiliation

with Best Western, this effect is not dispositive on the issue. Plaintiff refutes this assertion,

arguing that the Defendants' continued use of the Plaintiff's name, label, and advertising has

likely caused confusion and deceived the public into purchasing its services in the belief that

the Defendants' hotel property was in fact a Best Western hotel long after the termination of

its membership. Plaintiff alleges there has been further effect as a result of the likelihood that

Defendants' conduct has diverted to them the benefit of the reputation and good will

associated with BWI's name throughout the territory. They contend that BWI's significant

investment of resources in providing membership services to its members and the substantial

dues and fees paid by the members are effected by the conduct of the Defendants. Thus, for

Defendants to hold their hotel out as a Best Western without adhering to the quality

standards, without payments of fees or dues, and all the while diverting customers from

authentic Best Western members, Defendants have damaged the reputation and good will

associated with Best Western and injured the business of all Best Western. Consequently,

Plaintiff contends that the effect of Defendants' alleged conduct on American foreign

commerce is both direct and substantial. 

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 9 of 14
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

 10The Plaintiff contend that the commercial use of a registered trademark such as

Defendants' use of Plaintiff's marks, entitles registrant, here, Plaintiff, to injunctive relief and the

recovery of damages and if the violation is intentional, the registrant may recover treble

damages.

 11 Here, Plaintiff's prayer for relief includes liquidated damages for the continued use

of the Marks past termination of the Agreement.

- 10 -

With regard to the second prong of the Timberlane I test, the Defendants merely state

"it is unlikely that Defendants' alleged violations will pass the second prong of the

extraterritorial application test by showing that the effect is sufficiently large to present a

cognizable injury to Plaintiff." The Defendants have not elaborated on their general assertion

regarding the second prong of the test. They merely assert that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the

prong.10 So long as there is "monetary injury in the United States" to plaintiff, then there is

a "cognizable [claim] under the Lanham Act." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 28

F.Supp.2d 1120, 1130 (C.D.Cal.,1998).

11 The Court finds that the effect of the Defendants'

violation as alleged by Plaintiff was sufficiently great to present a cognizable injury to

Plaintiff under the federal statute. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393,

1395 (9 th Cir. 1985). 

As a matter of international comity and fairness, the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the

United States may be applied only under certain circumstances. Historically, the third

requirement of the Timberlane I test has been given a more in depth analysis than the former

two requirements. This prong involves the balancing of seven relevant factors to determine

whether the interests of and links to American commerce are sufficiently strong in relation

to those of other nations to justify extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. Timberlane

Lumber Co. v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav's Ass'n, 549 F.2d at 613-15. The following

is a balancing of the seven factors involved in the third prong of the Timberlane I test.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 10 of 14
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

 12 Although the Arthur Wishart Act may potentially conflict with American substantive

law as it applies to the forum selection clause of the Membership Agreement, the Court finds

that there would be conflict as to the trademark issues.

 13The Court finds significant importance in the existence of the Arizona forum selection

clause when considering "allegiance of the parties" to a location. 

- 11 -

The Degree of Conflict with Foreign Law or Policy

Whether and to what degree the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act will

create an actual or potential conflict with the laws or policies of Canada is a complex issue.

Both parties submit that currently there are no matters pending in the Canadian court system

regarding this law suit. See Wells Fargo, 556 F.2d at 428-29 (the existence of a conflict with

a foreign trademark registration weighs against extraterritorial application of the Lanham

Act); Reebok Intern., Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc,. 970 F.2d 552, 554 -555 (9th

Cir.1992). Therefore, the Court finds that there is little risk of conflict with foreign law or

policy.12

The Nationality or Allegiance of the Parties and the Location of Principal Places of

Business of the Corporations

Plaintiff is an Arizona non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in

Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff's witnesses are either located in Phoenix or available in Phoenix.

Defendant Moyle is a Canadian citizen. Defendant Ontario is a Canadian corporation with

its principal place of business in Parry Sound, Ontario.13

The Extent to Which Enforcement by Either State Can Be Expected to Achieve

Compliance

During the pendency of this case, the Court has been able to conduct proceedings and

compliance with this Court's orders has been achieved.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 11 of 14
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 - 12 -

The Relative Significance of Effects on the United States as Compared with Those

Elsewhere

At this stage of the proceedings, Defendants' assertion that alleged trademark violation

committed in Canada necessarily results in having a greater effect in Canada than anywhere

else is without factual support. Plaintiff contends however that the situation is not

necessarily that elementary. Plaintiff argues that the alleged conduct of Defendants has

impacted the good will and reputation of BWI, an Arizona corporation, which in turn

inherently effects all members of BWI. When the reputation and good will of a business,

here an American association of hotels with its headquarters located in the United States, is

put into jeopardy, the Court finds that there can be significant effect on the business, as well

as on the United States. 

The Extent to Which There Is Explicit Purpose to Harm or Affect American Commerce

Defendants aver that their conduct was consistent with Canadian laws and practices,

and "there was never particular interest in affecting United States commerce". Despite the

fact that the Defendants' conduct may have been consistent with Canadian law, Defendants

knowingly entered into a contract with Plaintiff thereby agreeing to resolve any disputes in

the State of Arizona and according to the laws of Arizona. Thus, Defendants' argument that

their conduct was consistent with Canadian law simply is lacking in merit. 

At this time, the record demonstrates that Defendants' had actual knowledge that they

were placing in commerce the trademarks and symbols of BWI subsequent to the termination

of their membership and license. The conduct was in direct conflict with the contractual

terms of the Membership Agreement and can be construed as being directly aimed at

affecting an Arizona corporation engaged in commerce in America, Canada, and worldwide.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 12 of 14
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

 14Plaintiff contends via affidavit of Cheryl Pollack, Director of Member Services

Administration of BWI , that BWI does not and has never had a regional office in Canada. (Doc.

37-2)

- 13 -

The Foreseeability of Such Effect

Defendants argue that as a consequence of the hotel location and the fact that they

dealt primarily with Best Western offices in Canada14, the effects on the American commerce

was unforeseeable. However, according to Cheryl Pollack, Director of Member Services

Administration of BWI, the effects on the American commerce was not in fact unforeseeable.

She attests that Defendants made use the reservation system headquartered in Phoenix,

Arizona, received billing from the Phoenix, Arizona office, and often mailed their bills to the

Phoenix, Arizona office. Pollack explained that all member services are conducted from the

Arizona office, and the customer service center which receives complaints made by

customers of Defendants' hotel is located in Phoenix. (Doc. 37-2). 

 Moreover, by the terms of the Membership Agreement, the Defendants agreed to

the imposition of liquidated damages for the continued use of the Best Western marks after

the termination of their membership. The continued use of the marks undoubtedly effects

commerce in that Best Western is essentially an American business name that represents

quality and reputation and is sold for use by others. Others seek to use the name for the

benefit of its good will and reputation. If the name is diluted and the reputation tainted, all

members and arguably customers are thereby effected. 

Simply put, the combination of Defendants' active use of the Phoenix office during

their membership, as well as the contemplation in the contract of liquidated damages for the

continued use of the marks, give rise to the matter of foreseeability. Where the Defendants

knew that liquidated damages would be imposed for the illegal continued use of the marks,

the Court finds that the Defendants were on sufficient notice that such conduct could have

a potentially devastating effect on American commerce.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 13 of 14
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 - 14 -

The Relative Importance to the Violations Charged of Conduct Within the United

Stated as Compared with the Conduct Abroad

Finally, this Court will consider the location of the alleged improper conduct in

assessing the appropriateness of the exercise of jurisdiction. There is no dispute in this case

that the infringing conduct occurred in Canada.

Resolving the Seven Factor Test

After careful consideration of all the factors in the Timberlane I test, the Court

concludes that overall, the factors weigh in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction in this case.

Therefore, the Court finds that the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is proper

and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.

(Doc. 33).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has established that the Court has

personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, as well as subject matter jurisdiction over the

case.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01194-SMM Document 42 Filed 03/13/07 Page 14 of 14