Opinion ID: 2645047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prong One: “Arising Out of” or Relatedness

Text: “[A] fundamental element of the specific jurisdiction calculus is that plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to at least one of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.’” Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842, 850 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1222 (additional internal quotation marks omitted)). “Our inquiry must focus on the direct causal relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Fraser, 594 F.3d at 850 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414, 104 S. Ct. at1872). “[A] relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation is the essential 10 We recognize the existence of the sliding-scale test for Internet cases first articulated in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W. D. Pa. 1997). But our Court has noted scholarly criticisms of the Zippo test. See Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1219–20 n.26. We conclude the traditional, three-prong test works just fine in this Internet case where the website was commercial and fully interactive. 32 Case: 12-12501 Date Filed: 12/02/2013 Page: 33 of 39 foundation of in personum jurisdiction . . . .” Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414, 104 S. Ct. at 1872 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Louis Vuitton’s trademark claims arise out of Mosseri’s contacts with Florida. Mosseri’s ties to Florida all involve the advertising, selling, and distributing of alleged counterfeit and infringing Louis Vuitton goods into the state and accepting payment from Florida customers for such goods. There is a direct causal relationship between Mosseri, Florida, and Louis Vuitton’s trademark claims. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414, 104 S. Ct. at 1872. This first requirement is easily satisfied.