Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02120/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02120-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANITY.COM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VANITY SHOP OF GRAND FORKS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 12-02912 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL

JURISDICTION AND GRANTING

TRANSFER OF VENUE TO THE

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

On September 21, 2012, the Court heard argument on the motion by defendant Vanity Shop of

Grand Forks, Inc. to dismiss plaintiff Vanity.com, Inc.’s first amended complaint for lack of personal

jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to the District of Arizona. Having considered the

arguments of counsel and the pleadings and papers on file, and for good cause shown, the Court

DENIES the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and GRANTS the motion to transfer

venue to the District of Arizona.

BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2012, plaintiff Vanity.com, Inc. (“Vanity.com”) filed this suit against defendant

Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc. (“Vanity Shop”) seeking declaratory judgment on the following

issues: (1) that plaintiff did not infringe defendant’s trademark; (2) that plaintiff did not engage in unfair

competition; (3) that plaintiff did not violate the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act; and (4)

that plaintiff is the rightful holder of the “vanity.com” domain name. See First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”). Plaintiff also claims reverse domain name hijacking per 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), common

law unfair competition, and unfair competition per Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Id. 

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 8
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

1

Defendant raises various evidentiary objections to Michael Rodenbaugh’s declaration. Dkt. 25.

The Court need not and does not rely on any of the disputed material in order to resolve the instant

motion. Therefore, the Court makes no ruling on defendant’s objections. 

2

 The FAC ¶ 19, 36 states that defendant filed the NAF complaint on May 15, 2012. However,

the NAF decision dates the filing of the complaint as May 10, 2012. Rodenbaugh Decl. Ex. F.

3

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and defendant’s requests (Dkts. 10, 24), the Court

hereby takes judicial notice of the proceeding filed in Arizona (“Arizona action”). 

2

In 1995, plaintiff Vanity.com registered the domain name “vanity.com” with GoDaddy.com,

LLC (“GoDaddy.com”), Rodenbaugh Decl.1 Ex. A. Plaintiff Vanity.com also owns a federal trademark

registration for the vanity.com trademark, which it uses in connection with “on-line journals, namely

blogs featuring cosmetic procedures and surgery related content,” FAC ¶ 6, but apparently does not offer

goods or services for sale on the site. Tease Decl. Ex. A. Vanity Shop is a privately owned specialty

retailer of women’s and girls’ apparel, with retail stores and a website from which it advertises and sells

apparel. Motschenbacher Decl. ¶ 2-3, 11. It registered “vanityshops.com” and “evanity.com” with

GoDaddy.com in 1998 and 2004, respectively. Rodenbaugh Decl. Ex. A.

GoDaddy.com is a registrar with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

(“ICANN”). Tease Decl. Ex. B. All ICANN registrants must comply with the Uniform Domain Name

Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), a private contract that outlines domain name dispute procedures.

Rodenbaugh Decl. Ex. G. On May 10, 2012, Vanity Shop, the defendant here, filed a complaint with

the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) in accordance with UDRP paragraph 4(a), alleging misuse of

the domain name by Vanity.com. Id. at Ex. F.2

 On June 5, 2012, before the NAF issued its decision,

Vanity.com filed the instant complaint in this district, seeking inter alia, declaratory judgment on similar

misuse claims. Compl. ¶ 31-48. On June 20, 2012, the NAF granted judgment for Vanity Shop and

ordered the transfer of the vanity.com domain name to defendant. Tease Decl. Ex. B. 

On July 3, 2012 Vanity.com filed another suit, this one in the District of Arizona, seeking

declaratory relief, common law unfair competition, unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

§ 17200, and injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v). See Vanity.com, Inc. v. Vanity Shop

of Grand Forks, Inc., Case no. 2:12-cv-01446-JAT, (D. Ariz., July 3, 2012), Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1.3

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 2 of 8
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

3

On August 2, 2012, Vanity Shop filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), seeking dismissal

for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the

District of Arizona. Notice of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 1-3. Vanity Shop argues that the Court lacks

personal jurisdiction because Vanity Shop does not have, and never has had, any stores, physical

facilities, employees, or bank accounts located in California, nor is it registered to do business there. Id.;

Motschenbacher Decl. ¶ 4-9. Vanity Shop also argues alternatively that the case should be transferred

to the District of Arizona because the parties consented to venue there, for convenience, and because

of the pending Arizona action. Mot. to Dismiss at 3-4, 11-12. 

LEGAL STANDARD

1. Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant may exist if the defendant has either a

continuous and systematic presence in the state (general jurisdiction), or minimum contacts with the

forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice” (specific jurisdiction). Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)

(citation omitted). Where there is no federal statute applicable to determine personal jurisdiction, a

district court should apply the law of the state where the court sits. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin

Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). California law requires only that the exercise of personal

jurisdiction comply with federal due process requirements. See id. at 800-01. 

“A defendant whose contacts with a state are ‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic’ can

be haled into court in that state in any action, even if the action is unrelated to those contacts.” Bancroft

& Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Helicopteros

Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984)). “This is known as general

jurisdiction. The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is fairly high and requires that the

defendant’s contacts be of the sort that approximate physical presence.” Id. (citations omitted). “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.” Id.

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 3 of 8
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

4

In order for a court to exert specific jurisdiction in accordance with due process, a nonresident

defendant must have “‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such that the assertion of jurisdiction

‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy,

453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 315). The Ninth Circuit employs

a three-part test to determine whether the defendant has such minimum contacts with a forum state.

First, the “nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum 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 the forum state. Cybersell, Inc. v.

Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 418 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th

Cir. 1998)). Second, the claim must “arise[] out of or result[] from the defendant’s forum-related

activities,” and third, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant must be reasonable.

Pebble Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1155. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the first two conditions.

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008). If the plaintiff carries this burden, “the

defendant must come forward with a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be

reasonable.” Id. (citing Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). 

If a district court acts on the defendant’s motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary

hearing, the plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the

defendant.” Id. at 1129 (citation omitted). Unless directly contravened, the plaintiff’s version of the

facts is taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be resolved

in the plaintiff’s favor for purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction

exists. Id. (citation omitted); see also Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1087.

2. Transfer of Venue

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil matter to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect

litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal citations and quotation omitted). A motion for transfer lies

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 4 of 8
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

5

within the broad discretion of the district court, and must be determined on an individualized basis. See

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000).

Courts evaluate the following factors to determine which venue is more convenient to the parties

and the witnesses: (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the

witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6)

feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the

relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. See Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d

1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Jones v. GNC Franchising Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th

Cir.2000). The Court has broad discretion to address these factors based on the particular facts of each

case. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). 

DISCUSSION

1. PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Although Vanity.com asserts that the Court can exercise general jurisdiction because of Vanity

Shop’s general business presence, the Court need not address general jurisdiction, which has an

“exacting standard,” because the Court finds that Vanity Shop’s sales and advertising directed at

California give rise to specific jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801. 

Vanity Shop’s contacts with customers in California satisfies the “purposefully avails” standard

articulated by the Ninth Circuit. Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 418. Vanity Shop admits that “total sales to

customers in California have been approximately 0.02% of [our] total sales.” Motschenbacher Decl.

¶ 11. Vanity Shop also admits that it “does not direct its online advertising at California any more than

any other state.” Id. Thus, Vanity Shop’s sales and advertising constitute 1) intentional acts 2)

expressly aimed at California through its online interactive website that allegedly 3) harmed Vanity.com

in the form of economic loss from having its domain name misused in California. While these sales may

be small, it cannot be said that they are not purposefully directed at California. 

 Vanity Shop argues that merely selling to California customers via its website is insufficient to

confer personal jurisdiction. The Court disagrees. Vanity Shop’s website is not merely a passive

website, it is interactive, allowing shoppers to purchase items online. Motschenbacher Decl. ¶ 11; see

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Brayton Purcell LLP, 606 F.3d at 1129. Websites with online advertising are interactive so long as they

have “something more,” such as conducting commercial activity over the internet with forum residents,

encouraging residents of the forum state to access the website, or earning income from residents in the

forum state. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997). In short, interactive

websites require a “sliding scale analysis,” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1018, where “the likelihood that

personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality

of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.” Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d at 419. Here,

Vanity Shop set out to engage with California customers through its website, where it sells goods and

services, advertises, and presumably ships those goods to California customers and provides customer

support and other services necessary to completing online transactions. Motschenbacher Decl. ¶ 9-11.

Given the nature and quality of these contacts, Vanity Shop has purposely availed itself of personal

jurisdiction in California. 

The Court also finds that Vanity.com’s claims arise out of defendant’s forum-related activities

because Vanity Shop’s dealings with California customers enable it to profit from its alleged domain

name misuse. Lastly, because Vanity Shop has purposefully injected itself in the stream of commerce

in California, exercise of specific jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.

CollegeSource, Inc., 653 F.3d at 1079.

2. TRANSFER OF VENUE

District courts have discretion in granting transfer. Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103,

1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001). In this case, plaintiff apparently filed an unauthorized suit in this Court,

presumably to avail itself of the “first-to-file rule,” before filing the appropriate lawsuit in the District

of Arizona. As such, the Court finds that transfer to the District of Arizona is appropriate. 

A. The parties consent to venue in Arizona.

According to the UDRP, the private contract that governs ICANN-registered domain name

disputes, either party can unilaterally file a complaint with an ICANN-approved administrative dispute

resolution provider. Rodenbaugh Decl. Ex. H. The moving party chooses the proper venue, which is

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 6 of 8
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

7

either the location of the registrar or the respondent’s location, and is determined by the complainant

at the time it files the UDRP complaint. Id. Within 10 days of a decision in this UDRP-required dispute

proceeding, the respondent may pursue legal action in the venue chosen by the complainant. Id. 

Here, Vanity Shop lodged its complaint online with the NAF, which the NAF resolved remotely.

Tease Decl. ¶ 3, 5, Ex. B. Vanity Shop selected Arizona, GoDaddy.com’s location, as its chosen venue

when it filed the UDRP complaint, and thus, both parties have consented to venue in Arizona. Tease

Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A. Moreover, Vanity.com filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment in the Northern

District of California during the administrative proceeding, then subsequently filed a complaint with

identical claims in the District of Arizona following the NAF decision. See Case no. 2:12-cv-01446-

JAT (D. Ariz., July 3, 2012), ECF No. 1. However, Vanity.com does not challenge the validity of

underlying agreement, the UDRP, which allowed Vanity Shop to choose Arizona. Therefore, venue is

proper is Arizona because that is the location to which the parties agreed. 

B. The “first to file” rule. 

The “first-to-file rule,” also known as the federal comity doctrine, is a discretionary doctrine that

allows a federal court to decline judgment on an issue that is already properly before another district.

Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979). The

purpose of the federal comity doctrine is twofold: 1) to further judicial efficiency by consolidating

identical claims in one forum, and 2) “to avoid the embarrassment of conflicting judgments.” Id. at 750.

Ordinarily, the first-to-file rule would counsel against transfer to Arizona because plaintiffs filed in this

Court first. However, a look into the course of this litigation and the Arizona action demonstrates that

plaintiffs are not entitled to benefit from such discretion. In particular, Vanity.com moved to stay the

Arizona action “until an identical, prior-filed action in the Northern District of California is resolved.”

Case no. 2:12-cv-01446-JAT (D. Ariz., Aug. 15, 2012), Pl.’s Mot. to Stay, 1:22-24, ECF No. 18. In

that motion for stay, Vanity.com states “[a]pplying the comity doctrine, also known as the “first to file”

rule, this Court should grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay.” Id. at 4:11-12. However, it was Vanity.com’s

choice to file a lawsuit in this Court before the NAF had a chance to issue a decision. Vanity.com

cannot benefit from this Court’s discretion where it chose to file a lawsuit here first, instead of waiting

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 7 of 8
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

8

for a NAF decision, and challenging that decision in the contractually chosen forum.

C. Additional Factors.

Several additional factors weigh in favor of transfer to the District of Arizona. First, venue in

Arizona is likely more convenient for the witnesses, in light of Vanity Shop’s license to conduct

business in Arizona and employee and agent for service of process there. Motschenbacher Decl. ¶ 9-11.

Vanity Shop asserts that a “substantial amount of evidence will already be in Arizona” as a result of the

UDRP proceedings. Mot. to Dismiss at 12. Also, GoDaddy.com, the registrar for the disputed domain

names, is located in Arizona. Rodenbaugh Decl. Ex. F.

Given Vanity.com’s consent to Arizona, the similar pending Arizona action, and in light of these

additional factors, the Court holds that venue in the District of Arizona is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction, and GRANTS defendant’s motion to transfer venue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 2:12-cv-02120-JAT Document 32 Filed 10/04/12 Page 8 of 8