A fterex am ini ng the brief s and the rec ord, we concl ud ed that  or al ar gum en ti s unn ec es s ar y. The appe al has be ens ubm i t t ed o n th e b ri efs an d th e r ec o rd . Se e F ed . R . A p p . P . 34 (a )(2)(C ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2980 be2 LL C and be2 H OLDI NG, A .G ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. N IKO LAY V. I VA NO V, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:10- CV-01650

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED A PRI L 6, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 27, 2011 

Befo re F LA UM, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. On e o nl i ne matc hm ak i ng ser vi ce has sued ano therf ortr ade m ar k infr i ngem ent. The i ssue on a pp eali s whether the defendant ’s I nter net acti vi ty m ad e hi m susce ptibl e t o perso nalj uri sdic ti on2 N o. 10

- 2980 i n I l l i n o i s f o r c l a i ms a r i s i n g fr o m th a t a c t i v i t y . We c o ncl ud e that i t did not, so w e re ver se and r em and w ith di r ec ti o ns t o di smi ss f o r l ac ko fpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n. W e s et out the f acts as theyappear in the co m pla i nt. Pl ainti ffbe2 L L C is a Del aw ar e l i m i ted l i abi l i ty com pany thati s a l so headqu artered i n that sta te. I ts par en t co m pan y, b e2 Hol di ng, A. G., is o r g an i ze d a nd headqu ar ter ed i n Germ any. These com p ani es, wh i ch we c o l l ec ti ve l y c al lb e2 Hol di ng, r un a n Int erne t dati ng webs i te l o ca te d a t be2. co m . Pl aint i ffb e2 Hol di ng or igin ally offe re d its d at in g s er vic e o n ly to sin gle s in Eu ro pe. Overthe past few year s, be2 H ol ding has extended i ts re ach to 14 m i l l i on u ser s in 36 countr i es, i ncl ud i ng the U ni ted S tat es. The c o m pl ainta ss er ts c l ai m s ar i singund er the Lanh am A ct, 15 U .S.C. §§ 11 14( 1) , 11 25( a) , federa l c o m m on la w, a nd the I l l i no i s Uni f o r m De c e pt i v e T r a de Pract i ces A ct, 81 5 I LC S 510/ 1 t o /7 . T he co m pla i nt nam es N i k o l ay I vano v, a r es i den t o fNew J er se y, a s a defen dant. A l l ege dlyhe i s the co

- f ounder a nd CE O ofbe2

. net and al so the per son “ re sponsibl e forthe m aj or i ty o fb u s i n e s s t r a n s a c t i o n s ” o nth e w e b s i t e . U n t i lD e c e mbe r 20 06 , the co m pl aintco nt i nue s, I va no v o ffer ed a m at ch

ma k i n gs e r v i c e t h r o u g h th e w e b s i t e s l a d u r a n a . c o m. U n til th at tim e, th e b e2 .n et w eb sit e h ad be en ju st a c oll e c t i o n o fl i n k s t o o th e r I nt e r n e ts i t e s . B u td u r i n gD e c e mbe r 2 00 6, I va no v al l eg edly move d hi s m at ch m ak i ng ser vi ce t o the websi te be2. net, del iber ate l y c hoos i ng to us e an ex isti n g dom ain ad d ress an d de sign th at w ere “co nfusingl y s i m ilar ” t o be2. com “with the i ntenti on of m isle ad in g c on su m er s.”N o. 10

- 2980 3 I v a no v di d n o ta ns we r the c o mpl a i nt o r a t t e nd a s c he duled st atus he ar i ng, s o the di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d pl ainti ff’ s o ra lm oti on f orentry of defa ultunder Rul e 5 5( a) o f th e Fed eral Ru les ofCivil Proc ed ure . On plaintiff’s m o ti o n, the c o ur t l at ere nt er ed a def au l t j udg m en t unde r Rul e 55 ( b) ( 2)

. To pr o ve i ts da m ag es , b e2 Hol di ng s ub mi t t e d a de c l a r a t i o n fr o m Andr e a s Et t e n, i t s c o - CEO and a m em bero fi ts boar d ofdi re cto rs . Etten att ached to hi s decl ar ati on a ser i es of docum ents pri nted from th e I nt erne t. Som e of th ose d ocu m en ts w e re m ore re l evantto wh etherper sonalj uri sdic ti on was pro per in I l l i noi s th an t h ey w er e t o dam age s. One docum ent i s a pr i nt o utfr o m the “ Am er i ca n pe r so na l s” d ire ct o r y o fthe web s i t e b e 2
. n e t
. T h e d o c u me n t s h o ws th a t wh e n t he w ebsi te w as acces sed o ne yea r bef or e the hear i ng, 10 m en and 10 wom en with Ch i cago address es had reg i ste re d on be 2. net form atchm aking se rv i ces. A n ot her docum ent, pri nted fro m the w ebsi te sl aduran a. com , i s hea dli ned “be2 M anage m ent Tea m ” a nd hi ghl i ghts N i ck I vanov as the CEO a nd c o - f o unde r, a s we ll a s “ th e o ne re spo ns ibl e f o r c en so r sh i p, pr o fi l e appr o va l, de si g n, a nd advert i si ng. ” The page was pri nted fro m the w ebsi te sl adurana. com , but i t i s e m bl azo ned w i th the “be 2. net” l o g o . T h e d o c u me n ta l s o i n c l u d e s a d i s c l a i me r e mp ha si zingtha t “b e2
. N ET i s i n NO W AY affi l i ate d w i th be 2. COM a nd the i r unf ai r pr ac ti ce s. ” A thi r d do cument ap p ar en tly is Iva n ov ’s p ro file p rin te d from th e s oc ialne two r k i ngweb si te Li nk ed I n. Underthe c at eg o r y “ Exper i en ce , ” i t i nc l ude s an o th erde sc r i pti o n o fI va no v as the co - f o unde r a nd CEO o f“ be 2. ne t” a nd b o as ts tha t the w ebsi te offer s fre e “ dati n g ser vi ces w i th hund re ds of th ou sa n d s o f on lin e u se rs .”4 N o. 10

- 2980 A fterthe dist ri ct c ourtente re d i ts finaldef aul t j ud gmen t ag a i n s tI v a n o v , h e a p p e a r e d f o r th e fi r s tt i me thro ugh counseland fi l ed a m oti on t o vacat e the j ud gm en t as v o i d f o r wanto fpe r so na lj ur i sd ict i o n. Al o ng w i th hi s m oti on, I vanov subm i tte d a n affi davi t i n w hi ch he cl ai m ed that he was not the c o- f ounder a n d C E O of an y com pany cal l ed be2. net b ut m er el y a vo l unteerf or S l adur, the Bul g ar i anc o m p an y tha t ha d r eg i st er ed an d o wned the do m ain n ame b e2
. ne t. I va no v, a Bul g ar i an A m er i c a n, c l a i med tha t he ha d wr i t t e n a t e s t i mon i a lo n Sl adur’ s Bul gar i an m atchm aking si te, wh ich pro m pted th e co m pan y t o a skf o r hi s he l p i n b r eaki ngi nt o the Uni te d S ta tes mar k et
. He a g r ee d, he s ai d, b ec au se he w as p ro u d to be of se rv ice to a c om p an y f ro m h is n at ive lan d , b u t claim ed th at h is tas ks c on sis te d m o st ly o ft r an sl at i ngweb si te c o nt en t fr o m Bul garia n t o Eng l i sh, r es po nd ing to s o m e cus to m eri nqui r i es , a nd a ppr o ving us er s’ pr o fi l es . He a l r ea dy ha d a ful l

- ti m e j o b, he cl ai m ed , a n d sa i d he thoughto fhi s workf orS l adur as a “hobby

. ” H e tr i ed to expla i n hi s “CE O” sta tus by cl aim in g that S l adur had hel d him o ut as the CE O of b e2 .n et an d by ins ist in g t h a t t h e a c ro n ym st oo d on ly f o r “Cen tr al i ze d Expe r t Oper at o r . ” S l adurne ve r c o m pen sa te d hi m f o r hi s se r vi ce s, he c l ai m ed, no r di d he re cei ve any o therfi nanci albene fi t fro m hi s a sso ciat i on w i th the websi te be2. net. A nd , he c onc luded , he ha d neverse t foo t in the sta te ofI l l i noi s. W i th am ple r eas on, the dist ri ct c ourtf oun d t hat I vanov w as not c re d ibl e. The co urt denie d the m oti on t o vacat e the j ud gm ent. The cour t re l i ed on w hat i t d escr ibed as “the w hol e l i st of C h i cago co ntacts , the re sul t o fN o. 10

- 2980 5

Ivanov cal le d his m oti on one und er R u le 60( b)( 4) based 1 on lack of jurisd iction
. B eca u se he fil ed his m o t i o n le ss than28 days aft erj udgm en t w as en t er ed, i ti s t ec hni c al l y a Rule 59( e) m ot i on, butunde r the s e c i rc um s t anc es the t ec hnicaldist inct ion m akes no practi cal d ifferenc e. The personal j u r i s di c t i on i s s u e a r i s e s o ft e n u n de r Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , a n d we rel y on p rec edents app lyi ng that rule. M r. I vanov ’ s a cti vi ty, ” a nd co ncl ud ed that “the i dea of the ab s e nc e o f e ffe c t i v e I l l i no i s c o nt a c t s s uffi c i e nt to su p p or t in p er so n am j u ris d ict ion is u n d er c u t d ra m at ical l y. ” As f orthe ar gum ent that I vanovwas m er el y a vol unteer, t he di str i ct c ourtpoi nted to hi s Inter net boas ti n g th at he was co- f ounder a nd CE O ofbe2

. net. A n d the d istri ct cou rt resoun d ingly rej ecte d I van ov’s “Ce nt r al i ze d Expe r t Oper at o r ” ex pl an at i o n fo r de sc r ibing h im se lf as “C E O .” A p p ea rin g p r o s e a ga inon ap p ea l, Iva n ov ren ew s h is ar gum ent that he i s no t s ubj ect to perso nalj uri sdic ti on i n I l l i noi s. Because he kne w abo ut the sui t a nd chos e t o defa ult ra ther than defe nd , he m ust bear th e b u rd en o fpr o o fo n h i s po st
-j udg m en t m o ti o n c ha l lenging perso nalj uri sdictio n. S ee B urd a M edia , Inc. v. Viertel , 41 7 F. 3d 292, 29 9 ( 2d Cir

. 20 05); B a l l y E xp o rt C o rp. v. B a lica r, Lt d. , 804 F.2d 398 , 401 (7th C ir. 1986). The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fIv an ov’ s m oti on t o vacat e ca nnot b e sustained, as be2 H ol ding ar gues, as an exer ci se i n “di scr eti on pi l ed on di scr etion .” W hen 1 a di st r i ctc o urt ente r s a def au l t j udg m en t wi th o ut per so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the de fen dant, “the j udg m en t6 N o. 10

- 2980 i s vo i d, a nd i t i s a pers e abu se ofdi sc r et i o n t o de ny a m oti on t o vacat e that j ud gm ent. ” Re l a t i o n a l, LLC v

. Ho dg es , 62 7 F

. 3d 668, 67 1 ( 7th C ir. 2 010); se e a l so Je nke ns & Gi l ch r i s tv. Gr oi a & C o. , 542 F.3d 1 1 4 , 1 1 8 (5th C ir. 2008 ) ( applying de novo re vi ew on i ssu e o f pers onal j u ris d ict ion ); B la ney v . West, 20 9 F

. 3d 1027, 10 31 ( 7th C ir. 20 00 ) (n ot in g t h at ap p ella te rev iew u n d er R u le 60(b)(4) i s m or e s tr i ngent than under o therpor ti ons of Rule 60(b) ) , ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Indoo rCul t i vat i on Equipm ent from H igh Tec h Indoor G arden Supply, 55 F. 3d 1311 , 1316-17 (7th Cir. 1995). The perso nalj uri sdic ti on i ssue boi l s down to o n e of fed er alco nsti tuti onall aw . Pl ai nti ffbe2 H ol ding ass er ts cl ai m s a ri si ng under the Lanha m A c t, federa lco m m on l a w, a nd I l l i no i s l a w. T he La nh a m Actdo e s n o ta utho r i ze nati onw i de ser vi ce o fpro c es s, Sun wardEle cs . , Inc . v. M cD ona ld, 36 2 F

. 3d 17, 22 ( 2d Cir

. 20 04) , so a fed er al cour t s i tting i n I l l i noi s m ay exer ci se j uri sdic ti on o ver Iva nov in thi s ca se onl y i fautho ri zed bo th byI l l i n ois l aw an d b y the Uni te d S ta te s Con st i tu ti o n. S ee F ed. R. C iv. P . 4(k)(1 )(A ); Tam buro v. D w orkin , 60 1 F

. 3d 693, 70 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 010). T he I l l i no i s l o ng - ar m s ta tu te , i n tur n, perm i ts i ts cour ts to exer ci se perso nalj uri sdic ti on o n a n y b as is p er m itt ed by th e c on st itu tio n s o f bo th Il lin ois an d the U nited States. 735 I L C S 5/2-209(c). As n o t e d ab o v e , the di s t r i c tc o ur th a d am ple g r o un ds f o r di sc o unt i ngI va no v’ s cr edibi l i ty
. Itwas pr epo st er o us f o r hi m to s ug g es t th at, b y ho l di nghi m se l fo uta s th e “CE O” ofb e2
. net, he a ctual l y m eant to com m unica te th at h e w as th e w eb sit e’s “C en t r a lize d E x p er t O p er at or .”N o. 10

- 2980 7 Bu t e ven i fwe disc ount a l lsuch deta i l s in I vanov ’ s a ffi davi t, he ha s s ti l l s how n an ab sence ofti es to oract i vi ti es i n I l l i noi s. T he questi on be com es w hetherthe evi dence or i gi nal l y s ubm i tte d by be 2 Hol ding w as su ffi ci ent t o sh ow th at Iva n ov co u l d be req u ire d to d efe n d h im se lf on these cl ai m s in I l l i noi s. W e co ncl ud e o n thi s r eco rd thatthe U ni ted S tat es Consti tuti on f orbi ds an I l l i noi s cour t t o exer ci se per so na lj uri sdi ct i o n o ve r I va no v i n thi s ca se . The Due Pr o c e s s C l a u s e i s s a t i s fi e d o n l y i fI v a n o v h a s min i m um cont ac ts w i th I l l i noi s s uch that re quir i ng hi m to defen d a g ains t th i s l aws ui t i n th e st at e “do es no t o ffen d tr ad itio n al n ot ion s o f fair p l a y a n d su b st an tia l j u st ice .” Se e Int e r nat i onal Sh oeC o. v. Was hi ngt on , 32 6 U.S

. 31 0, 31 6 (19 45 ). Pla in tiffb e 2 H old in g re lies on a th eo ry of sp ec ific j uri sdic ti on ba sed o n al l eg ed e ffects o n i t in I l l i noi s. S ee ge n er ally Tam buro v. D w orkin , 60 1 F

. 3d 693, 70 2 ( 7th Cir

. 20 10) ( sum m ar i zin g l aw o fspeci fi c j uri sdic ti on a s ap p li ed to torts al leged ly com m itted over Int erne t). O u r in q u iry bo ils d ow n to th is : h a s Iv an ov p u rp os ely explo i ted the I l l i noi s m ar ket ? S ee Kee t on v. H us t l e rM agazine, Inc. , 46 5 U .S. 770, 78 1 ( 1984 ) ( up hol ding j uri sdic ti on o ve r maga zine pub l i sh erthat ha d “ co nt i nuo us l y a nd d elib er at ely ex p loit ed ” t h e m ar ke t in foru m st at e); u B ID, In c. v . Go D add y Grp., Inc. , 6 2 3 F

. 3 d 4 2 1 , 4 2 7 & n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( fi ndi ngtha t defen dan t’ s adv er ti singi n a nd I nt erne t con tact s w ith I ll inois w ere su ff ic ien t to sup p ort p er so n al jur isd ict ion ); cf. M ob ileAne s t he s i ol ogi s t s Chi cago, L L C v

. An e s t hes i a As s oc i at es o f H ou s t on M e t r op l ex, P. A. , 62 3 F.3d 440 , 446 (7th C ir. 2010) (find in g t ha t d efend an t’s8 N o. 10

- 2980 op er at ion of w eb sit e t h at co u l d be ac c es se d in Illin ois w as n otsu fficie n t t o s u p p or t p er so n al jur isd ict ion ). “T h is pur po se fula vailmentr equi r emente ns ur es tha t a defen dant w i l lnotbe hal ed i nto a j urisdi cti on s ol el y a s a re s ul t o f r a nd o m, f o r t ui t o us , o r a t t e nu a t e d c o nt a cts or of t h e un il ateral activity ofanot he r party or a third person. ” Burge rKi n g Corp. v . Ru dz e wi cz , 4 71 U

. S. 46 2, 475 (1985) (ci tations om itted ). “Co ur ts s ho ul d b e ca r eful i n r es o l vingque st i o ns about perso nalj u ris dict i on invol vi ng o nl i ne co ntacts to en su re th at a d ef e n d a n t is n oth ale d int o c ou rtsim p ly because the d efend ant o w ns o r oper ate s a websi te that is accessible i n th e forum state, even ift h a t site i s ‘int era c t i v e . ’ ” Il l i nois v. He m iGr oup, LL C, 62 2 F

. 3d 754, 76 0 ( 7th Ci r. 2010)

. Beyo nd si m plyo perat i ng an i nter activ e w eb sit e t h at is ac c es sib le fro m t h e fo ru m st at e, a defe n dant m ust in so m e way ta rgetthe forum state’s m ar ket

. S ee uB ID , 623 F.3d at42 7-2 9; He m iGr oup , 62 2 F .3d at75 8; Chlo év. Q ue e n Be eof Be ve r l y Hil l s , LL C, 6 16 F .3 d 1 58 , 171 (2d C ir. 20 10 ); R io Propert ie s, Inc. v. Rio Int’ l Int e r l i nk, 284 F.3d 10 07, 102 0 (9 t h C ir. 20 02 ); Capi t ol Re c or ds, L L C v. Vi de oEgg, Inc. , 6 11 F. S up p. 2d 34 9, 36 0- 61 ( S. D.N.Y. 200 9); Gath e r, Inc . v. Gat he r oo, LL C, 44 3 F. Su p p . 2 d 1 08 , 1 15 -16 (D . M as s. 20 06 ); Snow ney v. Harrah’s E nte rt ainm en t, Inc. , 1 12 P. 3d 28 , 3 4 ( Cal

. 2 00 5)

. I fthe d efe n d a n t m e re ly op er at es a w eb sit e, ev en a “h igh ly i nter acti ve ” w ebsi te, thati s a cces sibl e fro m , but does not tar get, the f or um st ate , then the defendant m ay not be ha l ed i nt o c o ur t i n tha t state w i th o uto ffen di ngthe Consti tuti on. S ee C a refirst of M a ryla nd, In c. v. C a refirst P regnan cy Ctrs

. , Inc. , 334 F.3d 390 , 394-95, 401 (4th Cir.N o. 10

- 2980 9 20 03 ); GTE N e w M e di a S e r vs. Inc . v. Be l l Sou t h Corp. , 19 9 F .3d 13 43 , 134 9-5 0 ( D .C . C ir. 20 00 ); Im age l i ne, Inc . v. Fot ol i a L LC, 6 6 3 F

. S up p. 2d 13 6 7, 1 3 7 0

- 7 1 , 1 3 7 7

- 7 8 ( N. D. G a. 20 09 ); Capi t ol Re co r ds , 611 F. Supp. 2d at 358- 59; M inn esot a Pub l i c Radi o v. Vi rgi ni a Be ac h Educ at i onal Br oadca sting Fo un da t i o n , 51 9 F

. S upp. 2 d 9 70 , 9 76 , 9 79 ( D. M i nn. 2007 ). T he record before us d oes not sh ow th at I van ov d eliberate l y t ar get ed orexpl oi ted the I l l i noi s m ar ket

. A l lthat be2 H ol ding subm i tte d reg ar ding Iva n ov’ s a cti vi ty re l ate d to I l l i noi s i s the Inter net pr i ntout showing that j us t 2 0 pe r s o ns who l i s t e d I l l i no i s a ddr e s s e s ha d at so m e po i ntc r ea te d fr ee da tingpr o fi l es o n b e2
. ne t. The p rintou t show s only the n ickna m e and a g e o f each user, the c i ty the use r then ca l l ed h om e, and the type ofr el atio n sh ip th e u se r w as se ek in g. E ve n if th es e 2 0 p eo p le ar e ac tiv e use rs wh o l i ve i n I l l i noi s, the const i tuti onal re quir em ent o fm i ni m um co ntacts i s no t s atis fi ed si m plybec ause a few r esi dents have r egi ste re d a c c ou n ts on be 2. net. To th e c ontr ar y, thes e a re at tenuate d contact s th atcou l d no t g i ve r i se t o pe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n wi th o ut offending tr adit i onalnot i ons off ai r pla y and subst anti al j usti ce. W e s ee n o e vid en c e t h at Iva n ov ta r g et ed th e Illino is m ar ketthatm i ght m ak e th i s ca se m or e co m parabl e t o GoDa ddy’ s m as si ve a nd s ucc es sful exp l o i ta ti o n o fthe I l l i no i s m ar k eti n uBID v . GoD addyGr oup thr ough a n adv er ti singc ampai g n tha t pr o duce d hun dr eds o ftho usan d s of cu stom e r s in the sta te an d m il li ons of d oll ars i n annual r eve nues. S ee 6 23 F. 3d at 428- 29. W e do not see10 N o. 10

- 2980

ev i den ce o fa ny i nt er ac ti o ns betwee n I va no v an d the be2. net m em ber s with I l l i noi s a dd re sse s. The abs en ce o f that evi dence and th e m i nuscule num bero fr egi str ants m ake thi s ca se m uch cl ose r to M obil e A nes thes iologis ts , w here the acces sibi l i ty ofthe w ebsi te i n I l l i noi s was not suffi ci ent t o show condu ct t ar get ed atthe sta te. 62 3 F

. 3d at4 46

. As f ara s we c ant el lfr o m the do cum en ts s ubmitted b y b e2 Hol di ng, the 2 0 Chi ca g o an s w ho cre a t e d fr e e p r o fi l e s o n b e 2
. ne tma y h a v e do ne so uni l at er all y b y s tu m bl i nga cr o ss the web si te a nd c lick in g a bu tt on th at au to m at ica lly p u b lish ed th eir dati ng pre fer ences onl i ne. There i s no ev i dence that d efe n d an t Iva n o v t ar ge te d or ex p loit ed th e m ar ke t in the sta te t h at w oul d al l ow a co ncl usi on that he avai l ed hi m sel fo fthe pri vi l ege o fdoi ng business i n the sta te. W e R EV ERSE the d istri ct cou rt’s order d en ying I van ov’s po s tj ud g men tmo t i o n and R EMA ND the case with instr ucti o ns to v ac at e th e j udg m en t an d di smi ss the c o m pl aint f o r l ac ko fpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n.

4- 27- 11