After examining the briefs and the record, we concluded that 

oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal has been submitted on

the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 10-2980

be2 LLC and be2 HOLDING, A.G.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

NIKOLAY V. IVANOV,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:10-CV-01650—Milton I. Shadur, Judge.

SUBMITTED APRIL 6, 2011 —DECIDED APRIL 27, 2011 

Before FLAUM, WOOD, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. One online matchmaking

service has sued another for trademark infringement.

The issue on appeal is whether the defendant’s Internet

activity made him susceptible to personal jurisdiction
2 No. 10-2980

in Illinois for claims arising from that activity. We conclude that it did not, so we reverse and remand with

directions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

We set out the facts as they appear in the complaint.

Plaintiff be2 LLC is a Delaware limited liability

company that is also headquartered in that state. Its

parent company, be2 Holding, A.G., is organized and

headquartered in Germany. These companies, which

we collectively call be2 Holding, run an Internet dating

website located at be2.com. Plaintiff be2 Holding

originally offered its dating service only to singles in

Europe. Over the past few years, be2 Holding has

extended its reach to 14 million users in 36 countries,

including the United States.

The complaint asserts claims arising under the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a), federal

common law, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade

Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 to /7. The complaint names

Nikolay Ivanov, a resident of New Jersey, as a defendant. Allegedly he is the co-founder and CEO of be2.net

and also the person “responsible for the majority

of business transactions” on the website. Until December 2006, the complaint continues, Ivanov offered a matchmaking service through the website sladurana.com.

Until that time, the be2.net website had been just a collection of links to other Internet sites. But during December 2006, Ivanov allegedly moved his matchmaking

service to the website be2.net, deliberately choosing to

use an existing domain address and design that were

“confusingly similar” to be2.com “with the intention

of misleading consumers.”
No. 10-2980 3

Ivanov did not answer the complaint or attend a scheduled status hearing, so the district court granted plaintiff’s oral motion for entry of default under Rule 55(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On plaintiff’s

motion, the court later entered a default judgment

under Rule 55(b)(2). To prove its damages, be2 Holding

submitted a declaration from Andreas Etten, its co-CEO

and a member of its board of directors. Etten attached

to his declaration a series of documents printed from

the Internet. Some of those documents were more

relevant to whether personal jurisdiction was proper in

Illinois than they were to damages. One document is a

printout from the “American personals” directory of the

website be2.net. The document shows that when the

website was accessed one year before the hearing, 10 men

and 10 women with Chicago addresses had registered

on be2.net for matchmaking services. Another document,

printed from the website sladurana.com, is headlined

“be2 Management Team” and highlights Nick Ivanov

as the CEO and co-founder, as well as “the one

responsible for censorship, profile approval, design, and

advertising.” The page was printed from the website

sladurana.com, but it is emblazoned with the “be2.net”

logo. The document also includes a disclaimer emphasizing that “be2.NET is in NO WAY affiliated with

be2.COM and their unfair practices.” A third document

apparently is Ivanov’s profile printed from the socialnetworking website LinkedIn. Under the category “Experience,” it includes another description of Ivanov as the

co-founder and CEO of “be2.net” and boasts that the

website offers free “dating services with hundreds of

thousands of online users.”
4 No. 10-2980

After the district court entered its final default judgment against Ivanov, he appeared for the first time

through counsel and filed a motion to vacate the judgment as void for want of personal jurisdiction. Along

with his motion, Ivanov submitted an affidavit in which

he claimed that he was not the co-founder and CEO of

any company called be2.net but merely a volunteer for

Sladur, the Bulgarian company that had registered and

owned the domain name be2.net. Ivanov, a BulgarianAmerican, claimed that he had written a testimonial on

Sladur’s Bulgarian matchmaking site, which prompted

the company to ask for his help in breaking into the

United States market. He agreed, he said, because he

was proud to be of service to a company from his

native land, but claimed that his tasks consisted mostly

of translating website content from Bulgarian to English,

responding to some customer inquiries, and approving

users’ profiles. He already had a full-time job, he

claimed, and said he thought of his work for Sladur as a

“hobby.” He tried to explain his “CEO” status by

claiming that Sladur had held him out as the CEO of

be2.net and by insisting that the acronym stood only

for “Centralized Expert Operator.” Sladur never compensated him for his services, he claimed, nor did he

receive any other financial benefit from his association

with the website be2.net. And, he concluded, he had

never set foot in the state of Illinois.

With ample reason, the district court found that Ivanov

was not credible. The court denied the motion to vacate

the judgment. The court relied on what it described

as “the whole list of Chicago contacts, the result of
No. 10-2980 5

Ivanov called his motion one under Rule 60(b)(4) based 1

on lack of jurisdiction. Because he filed his motion less

than 28 days after judgment was entered, it is technically a

Rule 59(e) motion, but under these circumstances the technical distinction makes no practical difference. The personal

jurisdiction issue arises often under Rule 60(b)(4), and we

rely on precedents applying that rule.

Mr. Ivanov’s activity,” and concluded that “the idea of

the absence of effective Illinois contacts sufficient to

support in personam jurisdiction is undercut dramatically.” As for the argument that Ivanov was merely a

volunteer, the district court pointed to his Internet

boasting that he was co-founder and CEO of be2.net.

And the district court resoundingly rejected Ivanov’s

“Centralized Expert Operator” explanation for describing

himself as “CEO.”

Appearing pro se again on appeal, Ivanov renews his

argument that he is not subject to personal jurisdiction

in Illinois. Because he knew about the suit and chose to

default rather than defend, he must bear the burden

of proof on his post-judgment motion challenging

personal jurisdiction. See Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417

F.3d 292, 299 (2d Cir. 2005); Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar,

Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 401 (7th Cir. 1986).

The district court’s denial of Ivanov’s motion to

vacate cannot be sustained, as be2 Holding argues, as

an exercise in “discretion piled on discretion.” When 1

a district court enters a default judgment without

personal jurisdiction over the defendant, “the judgment
6 No. 10-2980

is void, and it is a per se abuse of discretion to deny

a motion to vacate that judgment.” Relational, LLC v.

Hodges, 627 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Jenkens

& Gilchrist v. Groia & Co., 542 F.3d 114, 118 (5th Cir.

2008) (applying de novo review on issue of personal

jurisdiction); Blaney v. West, 209 F.3d 1027, 1031 (7th

Cir. 2000) (noting that appellate review under Rule

60(b)(4) is more stringent than under other portions of

Rule 60(b)), citing United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equipment from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d

1311, 1316-17 (7th Cir. 1995).

The personal jurisdiction issue boils down to one of

federal constitutional law. Plaintiff be2 Holding asserts

claims arising under the Lanham Act, federal common

law, and Illinois law. The Lanham Act does not authorize

nationwide service of process, Sunward Elecs., Inc. v.

McDonald, 362 F.3d 17, 22 (2d Cir. 2004), so a federal

court sitting in Illinois may exercise jurisdiction over

Ivanov in this case only if authorized both by Illinois

law and by the United States Constitution. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 700

(7th Cir. 2010). The Illinois long-arm statute, in turn,

permits its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction on

any basis permitted by the constitutions of both Illinois

and the United States. 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c).

As noted above, the district court had ample grounds

for discounting Ivanov’s credibility. It was preposterous

for him to suggest that, by holding himself out as the

“CEO” of be2.net, he actually meant to communicate

that he was the website’s “Centralized Expert Operator.”
No. 10-2980 7

But even if we discount all such details in Ivanov’s affidavit, he has still shown an absence of ties to or activities

in Illinois. The question becomes whether the evidence

originally submitted by be2 Holding was sufficient to

show that Ivanov could be required to defend himself

on these claims in Illinois.

We conclude on this record that the United States

Constitution forbids an Illinois court to exercise

personal jurisdiction over Ivanov in this case. The Due

Process Clause is satisfied only if Ivanov has minimum

contacts with Illinois such that requiring him to

defend against this lawsuit in the state “does not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316

(1945). Plaintiff be2 Holding relies on a theory of specific

jurisdiction based on alleged effects on it in Illinois. See

generally Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 702 (7th

Cir. 2010) (summarizing law of specific jurisdiction as

applied to torts allegedly committed over Internet).

Our inquiry boils down to this: has Ivanov purposely

exploited the Illinois market? See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 (1984) (upholding jurisdiction

over magazine publisher that had “continuously and

deliberately exploited” the market in forum state); uBID,

Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 427 & n.1 (7th

Cir. 2010) (finding that defendant’s advertising in and

Internet contacts with Illinois were sufficient to support

personal jurisdiction); cf. Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago,

LLC v. Anesthesia Associates of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623

F.3d 440, 446 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding that defendant’s
8 No. 10-2980

operation of website that could be accessed in Illinois

was not sufficient to support personal jurisdiction). “This

purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a

result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or

of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475

(1985) (citations omitted).

“Courts should be careful in resolving questions

about personal jurisdiction involving online contacts to

ensure that a defendant is not haled into court simply

because the defendant owns or operates a website that

is accessible in the forum state, even if that site is ‘interactive.’ ” Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 760

(7th Cir. 2010). Beyond simply operating an interactive website that is accessible from the forum state, a

defendant must in some way target the forum state’s

market. See uBID, 623 F.3d at 427-29; Hemi Group, 622

F.3d at 758; Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616

F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2010); Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002); Capitol

Records, LLC v. VideoEgg, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 349, 360-

61 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Gather, Inc. v. Gatheroo, LLC, 443

F. Supp. 2d 108, 115-16 (D. Mass. 2006); Snowney v. Harrah’s

Entertainment, Inc., 112 P.3d 28, 34 (Cal. 2005). If the

defendant merely operates a website, even a “highly

interactive” website, that is accessible from, but does not

target, the forum state, then the defendant may not

be haled into court in that state without offending the

Constitution. See Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst

Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 394-95, 401 (4th Cir.
No. 10-2980 9

2003); GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp.,

199 F.3d 1343, 1349-50 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Imageline, Inc. v.

Fotolia LLC, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1370-71, 1377-78 (N.D.

Ga. 2009); Capitol Records, 611 F. Supp. 2d at 358-59;

Minnesota Public Radio v. Virginia Beach Educational Broadcasting Foundation, 519 F. Supp. 2d 970, 976, 979 (D. Minn.

2007).

The record before us does not show that Ivanov deliberately targeted or exploited the Illinois market. All that

be2 Holding submitted regarding Ivanov’s activity

related to Illinois is the Internet printout showing that

just 20 persons who listed Illinois addresses had at

some point created free dating profiles on be2.net. The

printout shows only the nickname and age of each user,

the city the user then called home, and the type of relationship the user was seeking. Even if these 20 people

are active users who live in Illinois, the constitutional

requirement of minimum contacts is not satisfied

simply because a few residents have registered accounts

on be2.net. To the contrary, these are attenuated contacts

that could not give rise to personal jurisdiction without

offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.

We see no evidence that Ivanov targeted the Illinois

market that might make this case more comparable to

GoDaddy’s massive and successful exploitation of the

Illinois market in uBID v. GoDaddy Group through an

advertising campaign that produced hundreds of thousands of customers in the state and millions of dollars

in annual revenues. See 623 F.3d at 428-29. We do not see
10 No. 10-2980

evidence of any interactions between Ivanov and the

be2.net members with Illinois addresses. The absence of

that evidence and the minuscule number of registrants

make this case much closer to Mobile Anesthesiologists,

where the accessibility of the website in Illinois was

not sufficient to show conduct targeted at the state.

623 F.3d at 446. As far as we can tell from the documents submitted by be2 Holding, the 20 Chicagoans

who created free profiles on be2.net may have done so

unilaterally by stumbling across the website and

clicking a button that automatically published their

dating preferences online. There is no evidence that

defendant Ivanov targeted or exploited the market in

the state that would allow a conclusion that he availed

himself of the privilege of doing business in the state.

We REVERSE the district court’s order denying Ivanov’s

postjudgment motion and REMAND the case with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint

for lack of personal jurisdiction.

4-27-11