## 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. 09

- 2658 M OBIL E A NE STHESIOL O GISTS C HI CAGO, LLC , an I l l i noi s l i m i ted l i abi l i ty com pany, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v.
A NE S T HE S I A A S S OC IAT ESOF H OUS T ON M ETROPLEX, P .A ., a Te xa s pr o fes si o na la ss o ci at i o n, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:09- cv-00941

— Charle s R. Norgle, Sr. , Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 2, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 1, 2010

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. Pl ai nti ff M obi l e An esthesi ol og i st s Chi ca g o i s a co m pan y b as ed in C hi ca g o tha t co ntr ac ts w ith m ed ica l offic es to p ro v i d e o n -sit e a n es th es ia ser vi ces. Defe nd ant A nesthes i a A sso ci ate s of H ousto n M et r o pl ex i s a m uchsm al l ero per at i o n c o ns i st i ngo fo ne d o c t o rp r o v i d i n gs i mi l a rs e r v i c e s i n H o u s t o n, T e x a s . We2 N o. 09

- 2658

r efert o the pa rties as M obile/ C hicag o and M obile/H ous to n. M obi l e/ C h i cago br ought sui t a gainst M obi l e/ H ousto n i n federa lco urt i n I l l i noi s cl ai m i ng tha t M obi l e/ H ouston vi ol ate d the federa lanti

- cybe rs quatti ng statute by re gi ste ring a dom ai n nam e con fu si ngl y s i m i l arto M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’ s r egi ste re d tra dem ar k. The di str i ct co ur t di smi ss ed th e su i t f o rl ac ko fpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n. W e a ffi rm . F i rs t, we concl ud e that M obi l e/ H ousto n di d no t wai ve i ts pe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n defen se b y a sk i ng to del ay a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n he ar i ng o r byasking f orexpedited di sco ver y t o prepar e forthathear i ng. Se cond, w e agree with the di str i ct c ourtthatM obi l e/ H ousto n l acke d the r equi re d “m i ni m um co ntac ts ” with I l l i noi s t o supp or t per sona l j uri sdic ti on there

. M obi l e/ Ch i cago r el i es pri nci pal l y o n the i nfe re nce th at M obi l e/ H ousto n expres sl y aim ed i ts conduct i n Texas a t h ar m in g M ob ile/C h i c a go in Illin ois . Th at infe re n c e is base d on two i nadequ ate co nnecti ons betw een M obi l e/ H ousto n and I l l i noi s: ( 1) M obi l e/ H ousto n’s cr eat i on o fa web si te a cc es sibl e i n I l l i no i s bu t ai m ed o nl y a t th e H o us ton mar k et, c o m bine d wi thM o bi l e/H o us to n’ s co ns t r uc t i v e n o t i c e o fMo b i l e / Ch i c a g o ’ s tr ade mar kv i a fe deral r egistration of that m ark; an d ( 2) M obile/H ou ston ’s re cei pt ofM obi l e/ Ch i cago ’ s ce ase - and-desi st l ett er . T hese conta cts ar e no t s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh thatM obi l e/ H ouston’ s a cti vi ti es i n Texas were cal cul ate d to cause harm i n I l l i noi s.

I. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d M obi l e/ Ch i cago has been oper ating i n the Ch ica go ar ea si nce 19 96. The co m pany has affili ate d offi ces i n otherN o. 09

- 2658 3 ci ti es, i ncl ud i ng H ouston . Th e r eco rd does notr eve al exactly when M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’ s Houston a ffi l i ate beg an oper ati ons, but M obi l e/ Ch i cago al l ege s that i t a dvert i sed i ts ser vi ces i n H ousto n i n 200 8. I n 200 3, M obi l e/ Ch i cago r egi ste red the w ebsi te <w w w . m obi l eanes thesi ol og i sts .com >, wh i ch i t co nti nues to op er at e t od ay . M ob ile/C h ica go als o o w n s a fed er ally re gis te re d tra d em ar k in th e w or d s M O B IL E A N E ST H E SIOL OG I STS. I t obtained the tr adem ar k re gi str ati on in 200 5. M obi l e/ H ousto n w as est abl i shed by Dr . E ricChan, i ts sol e m em ber, i n 2007 . On A ugust 2 2, 20 08, Dr. Chan re gi ste re d the websi te <w w w . m obi l eanes thesi a. com >. W orking un d er M obile/H ou ston ’s nam e, D r. C h an ope rat es as an ind ep en d e n t c on tr ac to r p ro vid in g a n es th es ia se r vi ce s f o rpa ti en ts i n c l i ni cs an d m edi ca l o ffi ce s th r o ug hout the Houston a re a. D r. C h an ’s p ro fes sio n al a c tiv itie s a re lim i t ed en tir ely to the s tat e o fTexas. H e i s l i censed a s a n anesthesi ol ogi st bythe S ta te of T ex as butha s no t be enl i ce ns ed i n a ny othe r sta te. H e has neve r advert i sed hi s s er vices o ther thano n hi s we b s i t e ( whi c h o ffe r s a ne s the s i a s e r v i ces “in the g r ea te rHouston area ” an d pr o vi des a Hous to nar eapho ne numbe r ) a nd in a pr i nt ed a dve r ti se m en t pu bl i shed i n Texas. D r. C h an h as vis ite d Il lin o i s ju ston c e, on va c at ion in 2003
. H e has neve r vi si ted I l l i noi s forbusi ness, has ne ve rc o nduc te d bus i ne ss i n I l l i no i s, a nd ha s no a g en t oro ffi ces i n I l l i noi s. H e h as n ev erat tended event s o r perf or m ed dutie s in I l l i noi s forany ofthe profess i onal as so ci ations t o whi chhe b el o ng s. And a l th o ug h h e sure l y kn ew ther e were anesthesi ol ogi sts i n I l l i noi s t oo ,4 N o. 09

- 2658 Dr. Chan w as unaw ar e th at M obi l e/ Ch i cago , i ts tr ademar k, o ri t s we b s i t e e xi s t e d u nt i lh e r e c e i v e d a c e a s e - a nd

d es istlet te r from its law ye r inD ec em b er 20 08 . Th er e is no e vi dence thatanyo ne el se ass oci ate d w i th M ob ile/ H ousto n has a ny r el evantco ntacts with I l l i noi s. The dis tr i ct c ourt d i sm i sse d M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’ s s uitf or l ack ofper so nalj uri sdic ti on. The co urt poi nted out that M obi l e/ H ou ston l acks any m eani ngful conta cts w i th I l l i n o i s a n d t h a ti t s w e b s i t e , th o u g h b e a r i n ga n a me sim ilar to M ob ile/C h ica go ’s, is n otd i r e c t e d atIl lin ois in an y way . The a sserti o n tha t Dr
. Cha n, s i tt i ngi n Hou st o n, kn ew abou t M obile/ C hicag o and i nt en d e d t o do it harm i n I l l i noi s, was “enti re l y unsu p p orted” a nd an “ em pty c on c lu sio n .”

II. Wa iver M o b i l e / Ch i c a g o b e g i ns wi th the b o l d a r g ume ntthat M obile/H ou ston w aived i ts right t o a rgue l ack of personal j uri sdi ct i o n whe n i t as k ed f o ra c o nt i nua nc e o fthe prel i m i naryi nj uncti on hearing and an e xped i ted di scove rysche du l e. W e di sag re e. M obile/ C hicag o fi led its l aw su it in th e N orthe rn D i s t r i c t o f I l l i n o i s o n F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 a n d r e q u e s t e d a preli m i naryi nj uncti on t o sto p M obi l e/ H ousto n’s use of i ts dom ai n nam e. The co urt sc hedu l ed a hea ring f or M arch 6, 20 09. On M ar ch 3r d, M obi l e/ H ousto n’s co unsel fi l ed a m oti on t o continue the prel i m i naryi nj uncti on he ar i ng, whi chDr
. Cha n c o ul d no t at ten d b ec au se he was s ch edu l ed to s ee pa ti en ts i n Te xa s tha t d ay. The m otion also r eq ue sted exp ed ited d iscovery to p rep areN o. 09

- 2658 5 f orthe hear i ng. Thi rt een days l ater, on M ar ch 16, 20 09, M obi l e/ H ousto n fi l ed i ts Rule 1 2( b) ( 2) m oti on t o di smi ss f o rl ac ko fpe r so na lj ur i sdi ct i o n. These pre l i m i naryact i ons do not com e cl ose to wh at i s r equi re d fo r w ai vero r f or fei ture
. To w aive orf or fei t a perso nalj uri sdic tio n d efense, a defe nd ant m ust g i ve a pl aint if f a r ea so nabl e ex pec ta ti o n tha t i t wi l lde fen d the s u i to n th e me r i t s o rmu s tc a u s e th e c o u r tt o g o t o s o me effo rtth at w ou ld be w as te d if p er so n al jur isd ict ion is lat er fou n d lac kin g. Se e, e . g. , Am e r i ca n Pat r i otIns . Age ncy, Inc . v . M ut ual Ri s k M anag e m e nt, Lt d. , 36 4 F
. 3d 884, 88 7- 88 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( Rul e 12 ( b) ( 3) de fen se o fi m pr o perv enue w as not w ai ved orf or fei ted wh en d efendant eng age d in prelim inary p retriall itig ation act ivi ty; p lai nt iff sh o ul d ha ve a nt i ci pat ed defen dan t’ s o bj ec ti o n, a nd de fen dant w as not “te stin g th e wind” o r causi ng “wasted m ot ion by th e c ou rt ”). Fa c ed w ith an im p en d in g p re lim inaryi nj uncti on hea ring and unabl e t o produc e its key w itness , M obile /H ou ston had the right to ask for m ore ti m e to l ea r n who was s ui ngi t an d wh y wi th o utl o sing i ts ri ght t o obj ect to perso nalj uri sdic ti on. The di str i ct co ur t di d no t er ri n pr o ce edingt o the s ubstanc e o fthe perso nalj uri sdic ti on defense.

III
. Spe ci

f i c Jur i s di ct i on I n a fed eral qu estion ca se su ch as th is one , a fed eral court has per sonalj uri sdiction ove r the defendant i fei ther federa ll aw o r the l aw o fthe sta te in w h i ch the cour t s i ts au th or ize s s er vic e o f p ro c es s t o th at d efe n d an t. O m ni Capi t al Int e r nat i onal, Lt d. v. Rudol f Wol f f & Co. , Lt d. , 4 84 U
. S.6 N o. 09

- 2658 97, 10 4- 05 ( 1987 ) ( federa lco urt shoul d l ook to a federa l st at u te or to the s tat e l ong- ar m st atute to deter m i ne defendant’s am enabi l i ty to ser vi ce, wh i ch i s “ a pre re quis i te to i ts exer ci se ofper sonalj uri sdic ti on”)
. The federa l st atut es o n whi chM obil e/ Chi ca g o i s su i ngdo no t au th or ize n at ion w id e s er v i c e. M ob ile/H ou st on is am en ab le to s er vi ce ( an d he nc e su bj ec t to p ersonalj ur i sdi ct i o n) o n l y i fi tc o u l d b e s e r v e d i n I l l i no i s u n d e rI l l i n o i s l a w. I l l i noi s’ s l ong- ar m st atute per m i ts th e exerc i se of perso na l ju risdict i on i fi t would be al l owed under e i ther th e I l l i no i s Con st i tu ti o n o rthe Uni ted S ta te s Con st i tu
tio n . See 73 5 Ill. C o m p . Sta t. 5/ 2-2 09 (c ). W e h av e h eld th a tth e r e i s n o o p e r a t i v e d i ffe r e n c e b e t we e n th e s e t wo const i tuti onall i m i ts. S ee Tam buro v. D w orkin , 60 1 F
. 3d 693, 700 (7th C ir. 2010); Hya ttInte rnati ona l Corp. v. C oco , 302 F. 3d 707, 71 5 ( 7t h C i r. 20 02)
. W e pr oce ed to the questio n w h et h er th e e x er c ise of p e r so n al jur isd ict ion w ou ld vi ol ate federa ldue proc ess . U nd erthe Suprem e Cour t’ s wel l

- est abl i shed i nter pretati on o fthe Four tee nth A m endm ent’ s due pro cess c lau se , a d efe n d an t i s su bj ec t t o p er so n al jur isd ict ion in a p ar tic u lar st at e o n ly if th e d efe n d an t h ad “c er ta in m in im u m co ntacts with i t s uch that the m ai ntenance of th e sui t doe s no t o ffend ‘t ra dit i onalnot i ons off ai r pla y and substa nti alj usti ce. ’ ” Int e r nat i onal ShoeCo. v. Was hi ngt on , 32 6 U.S
. 31 0, 31 6 (19 45) , quoting M illik en v . M eyer, 311 U
. S. 45 7, 46 3 ( 1940 )
. I t i s unco n st ituti onalto f or ce a d efend ant t o appear in a di sta nt co urt unle ss i t has done so m ethi ng tha t s houl d m ake i t “re asonabl y a nti ci pate bei ng hal ed i nto cou rt th er e. ” Burge rKi ng Corp
. v. R udzew icz , 47 1 U.S
. 46 2, 474 (1985) , quoting Wor l dWi deV ol ks wage n Corp. v. Woods on , 444 U
. S. 286, 295 (1980).N o. 09

- 2658 7 T he Cou rt has also fram ed the con stitut ional inq uiry in te rm s of w h et h er th e d efe n d an t “p u rp os efu lly a v a ils i ts el f ” o fthe ben efi ts a nd pr o te ct i o ns o fc o nduc ting a c t i v i t i e s i n the f o r um s t a t e . S ee H a n so n v. D enckla , 35 7 U
. S. 235, 253 (1958 ). Pers onalj uri sdic ti on ca n be gen er al o r speci fi c, depend i ng o n the extent ofthe defe nd ant’ s c on tacts. S ee Ta m buro , 60 1 F. 3d at 701. M obi l e/ Ch i cago does not ass er t, and the evi dence does not supp or t, a cl aim o f gener alj uri sdic tion overM obi l e/H ousto n i n I l l i noi s, so M obi l e/ Ch i cago m ust show that I l l i noi s can ex er ci se sp ecifi c j urisd ict io n ove r M obile/H ou ston f or this pa rti cul arcl ai m . S peci fi c per sonalj uris dict i on i s a pp ro p ria te w h en th e d efe n d an t p u rp os efu lly d ire c t s it s a c tiv iti es a t th e f o r um s ta te a nd the a l l eg ed i nj ur y a r i se s o ut of th os e a c tiv itie s. Se e, e . g. , Burge rKi ng, 47 1 U.S
. at47 2. M obi l e/ H ousto n did notpurp os efully di re ct i ts ac tiv itie s a t Illino is. It h as form ed n o c on tr ac ts in Il l i n o is an d h a s h ad n o p h ys ica l p re se n c e t h er e. M ob ile/C h icago poi nts t o the f act that Dr. C h an i s a m em bero f tw o profess i onalas soc i ati ons head quarte re d i n I l l i noi s, buttho se a r e th e k i nds o ff o r tu i to us cont acts tha t th e Sup rem e C ou rt has repe ated ly he ld d o not su p p ort pe rso na lj ur i sdi ct i o n where the c o nt ac ts b ea rno r el at i o nsh ip t o th e la w su it. Se e, e . g. , Burge rKi ng, 47 1 U.S
. at475; Wo rld-Wide Vo l k s w agen , 44 4 U.S
. at29 5. M obi l e/ H ousto n si m pl y ha s no th i ngt o do wi thth e sta te wher e i t i s be i ng cal l ed to appear i n cour t. Bu t M obi l e/ Ch i cago contends thatM obi l e/ H ousto n h as d on e t w o th in gs in T ex as to su bj ec t i t s e lf to s u it i n I l l i no i s . F i r s t, Mo b i l e/ H ous t o n ha s ma i nt a i ne d a8 N o. 09

- 2658

I n the pas t, the r ea s oni ng i n C al derh as b een c alled the “ effects 1 test.” W e b e l i ev e the p hr ase “e xp ress aim ing test”

— ado pted (co n tin u ed ...) w ebsi te w i th a nam e s i m i lar t o M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’ s t ra dem ar k, with c onst ructi ve noti ce o fthattr adem ar k thanks to M obi l e/ Ch icago’ s federa lr egi str ati on. S eco nd , after re cei vi ng the ceas e- and-desi st l ett er, M obi l e/ H ousto n has m ai ntai ned i ts w ebsi te w i th actual noti ce of M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’s id enti ty, l oca ti on, and ownershi p ofa si m i l ar ma r k

. F r o m th e s e f a c t s , M o bi l e / C h i c a g o a r g u e s , we sh ou ld infe r that M obile/H ou ston i nt en d ed to injure Mo b i l e / C h i c a g o i n I l l i n o i s , a n d fr o m tha t i n t e n twe shoul d find the conta cts needed to sati sfy due pro cess . This ar gum ent i s no t per suasi ve. T h e Su p re m e C ou rth as h e l d th at co n st itu tio n ally su fficie n t c o n t ac ts ca n be im p u te d to a d efe n d an t if th e defendant i s a ccused ofco m m i tting an i ntenti onal to r t bya ct i o ns th at ar e “e xpr es sly a i m ed” a t th e f o r um sta te. S ee C a lder v . Jones , 4 65 U
. S
. 7 83 , 7 89

- 90 ( 19 84 )
. The o ut co m e i n C a lderwa s t i e d c l o s e l y t o i t s f a c t s : F l o r i da c itiz en s w h o lac ke d s u fficie n t c on ta c ts w ith C alifo rn ia w er e no n et h ele ss su bj ec t to p er so n al j u ris d ict ion i n C a l if o r ni a be ca us e th eypub l i sh ed an a l l eg edly l ibe l o us story abou t a Ca li fornia resi d en t w he re the sou rces w ere alli n C ali fornia and “the brun t o f th e harm ” w as su ffe r e d by th e p lain tiff in C alifo rn ia. Id. T h e S u p r e me Court em phasi zed thatthe defendants’ act i ons w er e no t th e pr oduct of“m er e untar get ed negl i gence , ” i d. a t78 9, butr athe rwer e “c al cu la te d t o c au se i nj ur y t o r es po nde nt i n Cal i f or ni a, ” i d. at79 1. 1N o. 09

- 2658 9

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 by thi s c our ti n Tam bu ro , 601 F. 3d at 697

— i s m or e faithful to C a lder

. I tp r o p e r l y f o c u s e s a t t e n t i o n o n wh e th e r th e d e fe n da nt int enti onall y aim ed it s condu ctat the f orum s tat e, rather than on the p os s ibl y i nc i dent al an d co ns t i t ut i ona l l y i rr el eva nt effe ct s o f th a t c o n d u ct o n th e p la in tiff. As we r ec o g ni ze d i n Ta m buro , 60 1 F .3 d at70 4, th is co ur t’ s appl i ca ti o n of C a lderhas not been enti re l y c onsi ste nt
. In Wal l ac ev. He r r on , 7 7 8 F
. 2 d 3 9 1 ( 7t h Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) , we rej ecte d the co ntenti on that C a ldermean t “a ny pl aintif f m ayha l e an y de fen dan t i nt o c o ur t i n the pl aint i ff ’s h om e s ta te , w h er e t h e d efe n d an t h as n o c on ta c ts , m er ely bya ss er tingtha t th e defen dan t ha s co m m i tt ed ani nt e nt i o na lt o r ta g a i ns tthe p l a i nt i f f

. ” Id. at39 4. C a lder ’s “e x p re ss aim in g” req u ire m en t, w e h eld , w as m er ely o ne mean s o fs at isfying th e tr adi ti o na ldue pr o ce ss s ta nd ard s eto uti n Int e r nat i onal Sh oeand i ts f am i l i ar prog eny, notan ind epen d en t path to j uri sdic ti on that al l owed a defe nd ant to avo i d “ m i ni m um conta cts” alt oge th er . Id. at39 5 ; a c c or d , Kee ton v. H ust le r M aga zine, Inc. , 465 U
. S. 77 0, 78 0- 81 ( 1984 ) ( “The vi ctim o fa l ibel, l i ke th e v ict im of an y ot h er to rt, m a y c h o os e t o b rin g s u it inan y for u m w ith w h ich th e d efe n d an t h as ce rt ain m in im um c o nt ac ts
. . . s uchtha t th e m aint en an ce ofthe su i t do es no t o ffen d t r adi ti o na lno ti o ns of fa i rpl aya nd substa nti alj usti ce. ”) (cit atio n and quotati on m ar ks om i tted ). Ou r deci sion in Indi anap ol i s Col t s , Inc . v. M e t r opol i t an B alti m ore Foo tb all C lub Ltd. P'ship , 34 F. 3d 410, 41 1- 1210 N o. 09

- 2658 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) , s ug g es te d a som ewha t br o ade rt es t, b ut di d no t ac tu al l y a do pt i t. The r e we s ug g es te d t ha t the st at e i n which the a l l eg ed vi ct i m o fa t o r t su ffer s th e i nj ury ofthatto rtm ay autom ati cal l y obt ain per sonal j urisd ict io n ov er the d efend an t. W e w en t on, how ever, to h old thatwe “need notr esto n so aust er e a co ncepti on o fthe b as i s o fpe r so na lj ur i sdi ction.” The de fen dan t

— a C a n a d ian Footba llLe agu e team i n B altim ore

— had pl anne d t o a ctua l l y “ en te r ” th e fo r um s ta te o fIndi an a vi a n a t i o na lb r o a dc a s t s o fi t s g a mes , a nd the c o mbi natio n of th at p lan n ed en tr y a n d th e e x p ec t ed h ar m in In d i an a w as en ou gh to su p p or t p er so n al jur isd ict ion
. Id. at 412. Janmark, Inc . v. Re i dy, 132 F .3 d 1200 (7th Cir. 1997), ap p eared to ex t e n d th e reach of C a ldereven furt he r. W e wro te i n Ja nm a rkthat“there can be no s er ious doubt after C a lder v . Jones that the s tat e in w hi ch the vi cti m o f a to r t su ffer s th e i nj ur y may en te r ta i n a s uit ag ains t th e accused t or tfeas or . ” Ja nm a rk, 1 32 F
. 3d at1 20 2, c i ting Indianapo li s C olts , 3 4 F
. 3d at 411- 12
. In Ja nm a rk, there was no “ en try, ” ac tu alo ri m put ed, i nt o the f o r um st at e. M o r eo ve r, we di d no t di sc us s whethe rthe de fen dants i n that cas e h ad expre ssly a i m ed thei r conduct at the for um st ate , o r eve n w hetherthe d efe nd ants knew the pl ai nti ffwas l oca ted the re or had suffer ed harm ther e. We v i e w Wallaceas a correct stat em en t of th e stan d ard se t do wn by th e Su pr eme Co ur t. As in Ta m buro , we do n ot r e a d Ind ia na po lis C o lts or Ja nm a rkto co nfl i ct with C a lder, wh i ch m ade cl ear th at a defendant’s i ntenti onal tor t cr eat es the r equi si te m i ni m um co ntacts with a st ateN o. 09

- 2658 11 onl y when the defendant e x press l y a i m s i ts acti ons at the s tate w i th the kno w l edge that they woul d cause h ar m to th e p lain tiff th er e. Ta m buro , 60 1 F
. 3d at 703. On e c a n c e r t a i nly r e a d Indianapo li s C olts a nd Ja nm a rkto ar riv e at that co ncl usi on byano therr oad, se e Ta m buro , 60 1 F
. 3 d a t7 0 5

- 0 6 , b u t“ e x p r e s s a i mi n g ” r e ma i n s t he cruci alr equi re m ent when a pl ai nti ffseeks to es tabl i sh p erson al j urisd iction un d er C a lder

. M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’ s ev i de nc e tha tMo b i l e / Ho us t on too k e xpress ai m atIl l i noi s i s inadequ ate
. M obi l e/ Ch i c a g o fi r s tc o nt e nd s tha twe s ho ul d infe re xpr ess ai m i ng atI l l i noi s fro m the f act that M obi l e/ H ousto n oper ate s a websi te w hose dom ai n nam e i s s i m i l arto M obile/ C hicag o’s trade m ark. W e d isagree. A plaintiff c a nn o ts a t i s fy the C a lders ta nda r d s i m pl y b y s ho wi ng th at th e d efe n d an t m ain t ain ed a w eb sit e a c c es sib le to r esi dents o fthe f or um st ate and al l eging tha t the defen d an t ca u se d h ar m th ro u gh th at w eb sit e. Se e, e . g. , P a na visio n In terna tio na l, L.P . v. To epp en , 14 1 F
. 3d 1316 , 13 22 ( 9th Ci r . 1 998) ( “We a g r ee tha t si m pl y r eg i st er i ng so m eo ne e l se ’ s tr ade m ar k a s a do m ain n ame a nd posti ng a we b s i t e o n the I nt e r ne t i s no t s uffi c i e ntto su bj ec t a p ar ty d om icile d in o n e s ta te t o ju ris d ict ion in an ot h er .”); Young v. New Haven Ad vocate, 31 5 F
. 3d 256, 26 4 (4th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( no e xpr es s ai m i ngwher e th e defen dan t n e w sp ap ers’ only conta cts w ith th e forum state w ere th roug h w ebsites aim ed at an ou t-of- state aud ience ). S ti l ll es s do es M o bi l e/H o us to n’ s w ebsi te c r ea te c o nst i tu ti o na l l y s uffi ci en t conta ct s wi thI l l i no i s i n the ab se nc e o fe xpr es s ai m i ng . A defen dant’ s del ibe r at e an d12 N o. 09

- 2658 continuous expl oi tat i on o fthe m ar keti n a for um st ate , ac c om pli shed thr ough i ts w ebsi te as w el las thr ough othe r conta cts w i th th e stat e, can be s uffi ci ent t o est abl ish sp ec ific p er so n al jur isd ict ion . See , e . g. , u BID, In c. v. The GoD add y Group , Inc. , N o. 09

- 3927( 7th Ci r. S ept . 2 9, 2 0 1 0 )
. M o b i l e / Ho us t o n’ s r e l a t i o ns hi p wi th I l l i no i s s t a nd s i n sta rkco ntra st to su c h c ases. Dr. Chan i s no t l i censed to pract i ce m edi ci ne o utsi de ofTexas. H i s websi te does not conta i n m uch, but i t doe s co ntai n a Houston- ar ea phone num ber, an e - m ail add re ss, and an invi tat i on t o doctor s in the “gr eat erH ousto n ar ea” to contract f or his serv i ces. I fa doctori n Chicag o stum bl ed upon D r. C h an ’s w eb sit e a n d ca lled for a n ap p o i n tm en t, th eir conve rs ati on would be ve rysho rt
. Trying a seco nd path t o show “express ai m i ng, ” M obi l e/ Ch i cago ar gues th at its federa ltr adem ar k r egi str ati on gave M obi l e/ H ousto n “c on structi ve noti ce” that i t was i nfr i ngi ng M obi l e/ Ch i cago ’s tradem ar k a nd co uld be called to cou rt i n Il linois. T his argu m en t m isun d ersta n d s the purpose o ffedera lr egi str ati on. The federa l tr adem ar k s tatute on w hi ch M obi l e/ Ch i cago sued does not au th or ize n at ion w id e s er vic e o f p ro c e s s . See , e . g. , Sunw ard Elect ronics, Inc. v. M cD ona ld, 36 2 F
. 3d 17 , 2 2 ( 2d Cir
. 20 04)
. The st atute pro vi des thatr egi str atio n ser ves as “con stru ctive not ice ofthe re g istrant’s claim of ow ne rshi p, ” 1 5 U.S.C . § 10 72, but that provi si on i s intended to p rotect aga inst u sers of the reg is t ran t’s trad em ark who m i g hto the r wi s e r a i s e a de fe ns e o fi nn o c e ntmi s a ppr o pr i a t i o n. S ee In re Intern a tio na l Fla vo rs & Fragra nc es, Inc. , 18 3 F
. 3d 1361 , 13 67 ( Fed. Ci r. 1999)
. I t doe s no tN o. 09

- 2658 13 f o l l o w f r o m the c o ns truc ti ve no ti ce s ta tu te tha t an y all ege d i nfr i nger, despi te i ts l ack ofany othe r conta cts w i th the f or um st ate , m ay hencefor th be sued i n that sta te. In other w or ds, tr adem ar k o w ners c an n ot cre ate nati onw i de ser vi ce of proce ss by thi s theo ry of c onst ructi ve noti ce. Fi nal l y, M obi l e/ Ch i cago p oi nts o ut thatM obi l e/ H ousto n also ha d actu al not ice of M obile/ C hicag o ’s trad em ark fr o m the m o men ti tr e c e i v e d Mo b i l e / Ch i c a g o ’ s c e a s e - a nd

desi st l ett er . F rom thatti m e for w ar d, M obi l e/ Ch i cago ar gues, M obi l e/H ou sto n w as i ntenti onal l y di re cti ng i ts to r ti o us a ct i vi ti es a t I l l i no i s i n the s ame waytha t th e defen dan ts i n C a lderi nt en ti ona ll y di r ec te d the i rt o r ti o us activities at Calif ornia. T h is argum en t find s no su p p ort i n the case l aw . The cas es that have f ound express ai m i ngha ve a l lr el i ed o n e vi den ce beyo nd the pl aintiff’s m er e re sid en c e in th e fo ru m st a te . See , e . g. , C a lder, 46 5 U
. S. a t 78 9- 90 ( defen dan ts dr ew a l l eg edly l ibe l o us sto ryfrom f or um st ate so urces and new spaper had i ts lar ge st c i r c u lat ion in t h e fo ru m st at e); Ta m buro , 60 1 F
. 3d at 697 ( defe nd ants l i ste d plainti ff’ s for um st ate address on lin e a n d en c ou ra ge d re ad er s to h ar as s h im ); Panavi s i on , 141 F.3d at 1319, 1322 (d e fe n d a nt ’s int en t to harm pla i nti ffi n f or um st ate co uld be i nfe rr ed fro m hi s br oader sc h em e o f reg ist er in g p ro m in en t t ra d em ar ks as d om ain na m es f o rthe pur po se o fe xt o r tingm oney fr o m the m ar ks’ o w ners )
. H er e, by contras t, there i s onl y the ce ase an d

- d e sis t le tt er . To find ex p re ss aim in g b as ed so lely on the defe nd ant’ s r ecei pt ofthatl ett erwould m ake any defendant accuse d ofan inten ti onalto rtsubj ect to perso nalj uri sdic ti on in the pla i nti ff’ s h om e s tat e a s s oo n14 N o. 09

- 2658

as th e d e f e n d a n t le ar n s w h at th at st at e is
. C a lderr equi re s m or e. A FFI RMED .

10- 1- 10