1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

MOROCCANOIL, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TONY CONFORTI, et al.,

 Defendants/Third-Party 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

KEVIN CORONA, et al., 

 Third-Party Defendants. 

Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00136 (WJM) 

OPINION

 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.: 

Plaintiff Moroccanoil, Inc. (“Moroccanoil”) filed this action against defendants 

Tony Conforti and Salon Distribution, Inc. (“SDI”) for violations of the Lanham Act, 

alleging that defendants infringed Moroccanoil’s trademarks and copyrights and 

distributed counterfeit Moroccanoil products. Conforti and SDI then filed a Third Party 

Complaint against Venus Beauty Supplies, Ltd. (“Venus”), alleging that Venus sold them 

the allegedly counterfeit products. This matter comes before the Court on Venus’s 

motion to dismiss the Third Party Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. There was 

no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Venus’s motion 

to dismiss is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint, the Third Party Complaint, and 

the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties after they conducted jurisdictional 

discovery. 

Case 2:11-cv-00136-KM-MAH Document 61 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 657
2 

The original Complaint in this case was filed by Moroccanoil against Conforti and 

SDI. Plaintiff Moroccanoil is a California corporation located in Los Angeles that 

distributes a line of professional hair care products in New Jersey and throughout the 

United States. Compl. ¶ 3. Defendant Conforti is an individual residing in Ontario, 

Canada and a citizen of Canada. Compl. ¶ 11. Defendant SDI is a Canadian corporation 

with its principal place of business in Ontario, Canada. Compl. ¶ 12. Conforti is the 

owner and operator of SDI. Compl. ¶ 12. The Complaint asserts that this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Conforti and SDI because they distributed and sold counterfeit 

Moroccan Oil Treatment products in New Jersey. Compl. ¶ 2. 

On May 25, 2011, Conforti and SDI filed a Third Party Complaint against Venus, 

Kevin Corona, and Beyond Beauty, Inc. (“Beyond Beauty”). Venus is a Canadian 

company headquartered in Ontario, Canada. Third Party Complaint (“TPC”) ¶ 5, ECF 

No. 22. Venus operates three satellite offices, all located in Canada. See Affidavit of 

Ronald J. Campione, Esq., SDI’s Supplemental Br. Ex. A (“Campione Aff.”) at 9:22-25, 

ECF No. 46-1. The Third-Party Complaint alleges that Venus (located in Canada) sold 

the counterfeit products at issue to Conforti and SDI (who are also located in Canada). 

TPC ¶ 1, 2, 5, 11. Conforti and SDI then sold the products to Corona and Beyond 

Beauty, who are located in New Jersey. To transport the products from SDI in Canada to 

their location New Jersey, Corona and Beyond Beauty hired a third-party shipping 

company to make the delivery. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13. 

Conforti and SDI also assert that Venus has contacts with the United States on a 

regular basis. For example, Venus purchases professional beauty supply products from 

thirty-eight suppliers in the United States. See Campione Aff. Ex. B. Since 2006, Venus 

has entered into approximately 973 purchase transactions with these suppliers. Id.; see 

also Campione Aff. Ex. A at 29:105-106. One of Venus’ suppliers is Mykon 

International, Inc. (“Mykon”), a beauty supply company located in Ridgefield, New 

Jersey. Campione Aff. Ex. C. Mykon is Venus’s exclusive distributor of a popular 

brand of salon scissors called “Krystal-Q.” Campione Aff. Ex. A at 48:221. Venus 

ordered scissors from Mykon four times in 2007, three times in 2008, not at all in 2009, 

twice in 2010, and twice in 2011. Campione Aff., Ex. C. The cost of these orders never 

exceeded $2,805.90. Id. Conforti and SDI also assert that Venus is a supplier for Regis, 

Inc., a company located in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Venus attends trade shows in Las 

Vegas, Nevada and Chicago, Illinois; Venus contracts with a U.S.-based educator, to 

provide educational services at Venus’s locations in Canada; and that Venus engages a 

customs broker and a software company in the United States. Campione Aff. Ex. A at 

26:98-27:103; 14:53-15:59; 31-32. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

“Rule 14 makes very generous provision for impleading third parties,” however, 

“a court cannot proceed with an impleader action unless personal jurisdiction [is] 

Case 2:11-cv-00136-KM-MAH Document 61 Filed 06/01/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 658
3 

obtained over the third-party defendant.” Wright & Miller, 20 Fed. Prac. & Proc. 

Deskbook § 81 (2009). The burden is on the third-party plaintiff to demonstrate that the 

third-party defendant had contacts with forum state sufficient to give the federal district 

court jurisdiction. Stranahan Gear Co., Inc. v. NL Industries, Inc., 800 F.2d 53, 58 (3d 

Cir. 1986). In determining the propriety of a purported exercise of personal jurisdiction, 

a court undertakes a two-step inquiry. IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kierkert, AG, 155 F.3d 254, 

259 (3d Cir. 1998). First, the court applies the relevant long-arm statute of the forum 

state to determine if it permits the exercise of jurisdiction, and second, the Court applies 

the principles of due process. Id. In New Jersey, these two steps are one because the 

New Jersey long-arm rule extends to the limits of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due 

process protection. N.J. Court. R. 4:4-4(c). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Conforti and SDI allege that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Venus on two 

grounds. First, they allege that Venus is subject to general personal jurisdiction because 

Venus has systematic and continuous contacts with New Jersey. Second, they allege that 

Venus is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey based on a “national contacts” 

theory.1

 Each argument will be addressed in turn. 

a. GENERAL JURISDICTION 

Conforti and SDI argue that general jurisdiction may be exercised over Venus 

based on two sets of contacts that Venus has had with New Jersey: (1) Venus’s sale of the 

allegedly counterfeit products to SDI; and (2) Venus’s purchases of Krystal Q scissors 

from Mykon, a company located in New Jersey. The Court finds that neither of these 

contacts gives rise to general jurisdiction. 

A party is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Court through either specific 

or general jurisdiction. See J Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2789 

(2011). General jurisdiction can be established if the plaintiff shows that the defendant’s 

contacts with the forum are continuous and substantial, which requires “significantly 

more than minimum contacts.” Provident Nat’l Bank v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 

819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court recently explained: “For an 

individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s 

domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is 

fairly regarded as at home.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A., v. Brown, 131 

S.Ct. 2846, 2853-54 (2011). 

 

1

 Conforti and SDI abandoned their argument that specific jurisdiction can be exercised over 

Venus in New Jersey. 

Case 2:11-cv-00136-KM-MAH Document 61 Filed 06/01/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 659
4 

Venus’s sale of allegedly counterfeit products to SDI does not constitute a contact 

with New Jersey. According to the Third Party Complaint, Venus, located in Canada, 

sold products to Conforti and SDI, also located in Canada. Venus’s sale of products to 

another company in Canada does not constitute a contact with New Jersey. And Conforti 

and SDI’s subsequent sale of those products to a company in New Jersey cannot 

constitute a basis of personal jurisdiction over Venus. See Stranahan Gear Co., Inc. v. 

NL Industries, Inc., 800 F.2d 53, 59 (3d Cir. 1986) (unilateral activity of third-party 

plaintiff could not constitute basis of personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant). 

Similarly, Venus’s purchases of Krystal Q scissors from Mykon cannot give rise 

to personal jurisdiction over Venus in New Jersey. Venus ordered scissors from Mykon 

four times in 2007, three times in 2008, twice in 2010, and twice in 2011. None of these 

purchases exceeded $2,805.90. These isolated purchases fall woefully short of the 

continuous and substantial contacts required to give rise to personal jurisdiction, and they 

certainly do not make New Jersey the company’s “home.” Further, the Supreme Court 

has expressly stated that “mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not 

enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident 

corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.” Helicopteros 

Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 418 (1984). 

Accordingly, general jurisdiction over Venus has not been established in New 

Jersey.

b. NATIONAL CONTACTS 

Conforti and SDI assert that Venus is also subject to personal jurisdiction in New 

Jersey based on a “national contacts” theory. Specifically, Conforti and SDI argue 

Venus’s contacts with the United States as a whole subject Venus to this Court’s 

jurisdiction. The Court disagrees. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) “extends personal jurisdiction over foreign 

defendants for claims arising under federal law if that person is not subject to personal 

jurisdiction in any state but has sufficient contacts with the nation as a whole to justify 

the imposition of the laws of the United States.” See West Africa Trading & Shipping 

Co. v. London Int’l Group, 968 F. Supp. 996, 1000-01 (D.N.J. 1997); see also In re 

Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d 288, 298-99 (3d Cir. 2004). By 

its terms, Rule 4(k)(2) applies only to a claim “that arises under federal law.” 

Venus cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction based on a national contacts 

theory because the claims asserted against Venus do not arise under federal law. The 

single count of the Third-Party Complaint asserted against Venus is a claim for 

“Common Law Indemnification and Contribution.” Third-Party Compl. ¶¶ 16-19, ECF 

No. 22. These are not federal claims. See Santana Prods. Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom 

Equip. Inc., 69 F.Supp.2d 678, 684, 687 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (“There is no right to 

Case 2:11-cv-00136-KM-MAH Document 61 Filed 06/01/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 660
5 

contribution under the Lanham Act”; “[T]here is no federal common law right to 

indemnification and Congress has not explicitly or implicitly provided such a right to 

indemnification under the Sherman Act or the Lanham Act.”); see also Getty Petroleum 

Corp. v. Island Transp. Corp., 862 F.2d 10, 16 (2d Cir. 1988) (no federal common law of 

contribution, and no statutory right of contribution under Lanham Act). 

Accordingly, Venus cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey based 

on a “national contacts” theory. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Venus’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and 

Venus is dismissed from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. An appropriate 

order follows. 

 

 /s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J. 

Date: June 1, 2012

Case 2:11-cv-00136-KM-MAH Document 61 Filed 06/01/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 661