Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.

Last updated
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ArguedOct. 8, 2010
DecidedAug. 8, 2011
Citation(s)647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case history
Prior action(s)motion to dismiss granted, 2009 WL 3063062 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, and Barbara M. Lynn
Keywords
Personal jurisdiction in internet cases in the United States, Personal jurisdiction

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011), is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts. [1] [2]

Contents

This case had three significant holdings. First, the defendant, Brand Technologies, Inc., lacked sufficient contacts with California for exercise of general jurisdiction. Second, the defendant's alleged copyright infringement on its website was expressly aimed at California enough to find specific jurisdiction. Finally, the defendant's alleged copyright infringement caused harm that it recognized was likely to be suffered in California enough to find specific jurisdiction.

Facts

In April 2008, photographers for Mavrix Photo, Inc., a Florida corporation whose principal business was in Miami, took "candid" photos of a hip-hop pop singer Fergie and her husband during their vacation in the Bahamas. Mavrix registered copyright of those photographs for its business to exclusively license them to celebrity news outlets. However, shortly thereafter, Mavrix found that Brand Technologies, Inc., an Ohio corporation, had put those photographs on to its website (www.celebrity-gossip.net), allegedly without Mavrix's permission. This website has several interactive features, and was ranked as number 3,622 out of approximately 180 million websites worldwide based on traffic by Alexa.com, an Internet tracking service. It was a prominently popular website.

Mavrix sued Brand Technologies, Inc. and its CEO, Brad Mandell (collectively, "Brand") in the Central District of California for infringement of copyright of its photographs. Many of the celebrities whom Mavrix took photos of worked in Southern California and Mavrix kept a Los Angeles base, employed Los Angeles-based photographers, and had a registered agent in California. In addition, it paid fees to the California Franchise Tax Board. Brand moved to dismiss the action on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judicial history

Mavrix brought lawsuit against Brand in federal district court for the Central District of California, contending that Brand infringed Mavrix's copyright under 17 U.S.C. §§ 501, 502, and 504 by posting its copyrighted photos on its website. [1] Brand moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)). The district court denied Mavrix's motion for jurisdictional discovery and granted Brand's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded and reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 17, 2012.

Opinion

The Ninth Circuit, firstly, stated that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the jurisdiction is proper. [3]

General jurisdiction

Facts

Brand (1) allowed third parties to advertise businesses, such as jobs, in California on its website; (2) sells, or allows a third-party vendors to sell, tickets to California events on its website; (3) employs a California firm to design its website; (4) has business relationships with California-based national news organization, an Internet advertising agency and a wireless provider; and (5) maintained a "highly interactive" website which had features of commenting, receiving email newsletters, voting in polls and uploading user-generated content.

Court ruling

To find general jurisdiction over Brand, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that the supreme court and itself have denied the exercise of general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant when there were no substantial, continuous, or systematic contacts in the alleged jurisdiction. [4]

Conclusion

Applying the rule above, the court concluded that those contacts did not satisfy the requisite showing for general jurisdiction. Firstly, the court found that Brand was not registered to do business in CA, had no registered agent and no burden for state taxes. Secondly, the court stated, regarding (1) the advertisement that nonresident defendant's advertisement is influential only when it markets its own product by targeting forum residents but not when just other entities use the defendant's publication to promote their own businesses as in this case. With regard to (2) ticket sales, the court pointed out that they were third parties' business and insufficient to recognize the jurisdiction. Relating to (3) the employment of California web-design firm, the court decided it as "fortuitous circumstance" which is insufficient to premise jurisdiction because the firm formed California branch after its establishment of celebrity-gossip website. Also, the court stated (5) business relationship with California company was not sufficient, citing that "engaging in commerce with residents of the forum state is not in and of itself the kind of activity that approximates physical presence within the state's borders." [5] And finally, regarding (6) interactive website, the court deemed it as standard attributes of many website. It said that if it permit general jurisdiction based on access to such website, it would lead to the result inconsistent with constitutional requirement of "the continuous corporate operation within a state" be "so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against" the non-resident defendant.

Specific jurisdiction

Rule

First, the court declared three-pronged test, so called "minimum contact" test that "(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction ... must be reasonable." [6] The court stated that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof of (1) and (2), [7] and if the plaintiff did so, the defendant bears the shifted burden of proof regarding (3) to tell the jurisdiction would be unreasonable. [8]

The court also pointed out the Calder "effects" test [lower-alpha 1] The first prong of the specific jurisdiction test refers to both purposeful direction and purposeful availment. In cases involving tortious conduct, the court most often employs a purposeful direction analysis. In tort cases, the court typically inquires whether a defendant purposefully directs his activities at the forum state, applying an "effects" test that focuses on the forum in which the defendant's actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the forum. [9] Regarding the first prong that it requires (a) an intentionally committed act, (b) expressly aimed act at the forum state, (c) causing harm that the defendant recognized it is likely to be suffered in the forum state. [10] [11]

  1. ↑ The Calder "effects" test is a test for personal jurisdiction described in Calder v. Jones , 465 U.S. 783 (1984).

Conclusion

The court affirmed specific jurisdiction under the first prong test using the effects test. Regarding the effects test (a), the court found that Brand obviously intentionally posted the assertedly copyright-infringing photos. Also, regarding (b), because Brand used Mavrix's photos to exploit the California market for its commercial purpose, the court recognized Brand's activity as "expressly aimed" for its website with national popularity and scope appealing to and profiting from an audience in a particular state. Furthermore, the court stated that because the photos' value was foreseeably based on the significant number of Californians that would have bought the publication of the photos, Brands' conduct of posting those photos resulted in the harm of such California-based value.

See also

Related Research Articles

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

A scène à faire is a scene in a book or film which is almost obligatory for a book or film in that genre. In the U.S. it also refers to a principle in copyright law in which certain elements of a creative work are held to be not protected when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minimum contacts</span>

Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". A non-resident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum state if they 1) have direct contact with the state; 2) have a contract with a resident of the state; 3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state; 4) seek to serve residents of the forum state; 5) have satisfied the Calder effects test; or 6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

<i>Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc.</i> 2007 United States appeals court case

Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, was decided by the Tenth Circuit in January 2008. The Tenth Circuit overturned a dismissal granted by the District Court upon a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under FRCP12(b)(2). Dudnikov addresses the issues that arise regarding personal jurisdiction and the internet, applying standards set by the Supreme Court of the United States in a line of cases that progressively defined the doctrine and its scope in light of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

<i>Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.</i>

Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. was a trademark infringement case based on the use of an internet service mark. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona was asked to review whether the allegedly infringing use of a service mark in a home page on the World Wide Web suffices for personal jurisdiction in the state where the holder of the mark has its principal place of business. The Cybersell holding illustrated that passive websites do not establish personal jurisdiction outside the state in which they are based.

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000), was the district court case which preceded the landmark intellectual property case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001). The case was heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Napster appealed this case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King</i> American legal case

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, is a 1997 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case that helped define the parameters of personal jurisdiction in the Internet context, specifically for passive websites that only advertise local services. The opinion, written by Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's holding that defendant Richard B. King's Internet website did not satisfy New York's long-arm statute requirements for plaintiff Bensusan Restaurant Corporation to bring a trademark infringement suit in New York. The District Court's decision also likened creating a website to merely placing a product into the stream of commerce, and held that such an act was insufficient to satisfy due process and personal jurisdiction requirements.

Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262, is a California Supreme Court case in which the court declined to find personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who had no personal contacts with California. The Court found that the posting of a misappropriated trade secret on a Web site which could result in harm to California residents was not sufficient to show he had purposely availed himself of the forum state by expressly aiming his conduct at residents of California.

<i>Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha</i> American legal case

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 640 F.3d 497, was a case in which United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had granted American Buddha's motion to dismiss Penguin Group (USA) Inc. ("Penguin")'s copyright infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings.

<i>Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.</i>

Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, was a Ninth Circuit case involving the copyright of greeting cards that introduced the "total concept and feel" standard for determining substantial similarity. Courts used this test in later cases such as Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976).

<i>CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson</i>

CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson was a court case heard before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that contacts and contracts negotiated through the Internet with a party in a different state were sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction in that state. In particular, the court held that Patterson's use of storage, electronic transmission of files, and advertisement through CompuServe's network in Ohio were sufficient to grant Ohio personal jurisdiction over Patterson.

<i>Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC</i> 2010 personal jurisdiction case

Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling finding personal jurisdiction based on Internet transactions. In the initial filing, the state of Illinois sued Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet in violation of state law and for failing to report those sales in violation of federal law. Hemi moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the district court found that the Internet transactions provided a basis for Hemi to be sued in Illinois.

<i>Boschetto v. Hansing</i> Diversity jurisdiction case

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 is a diversity jurisdiction case brought by California resident, Paul Boschetto ("Boschetto") against certain private corporations with their principal place of business in Wisconsin. The case involved the determination of the question whether the sale of an item via the internet consumer-to-consumer trading portal, eBay, by the defendants in Wisconsin to the plaintiff in California, was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in the buyer's forum state. At the first instance, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California decided against Boschetto and held that a lone “eBay sale consummated with a California purchaser, was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over any of the defendants.” Boschetto appealed against the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court and denied relief to Boschetto. The Court became the first federal appellate court to address whether personal jurisdiction in a forum state could be established when an out-of-state resident makes use of an intermediary website accessible by forum-state citizens.

<i>Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger</i>

Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger was a case out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the court developed a reasoned framework to determine the proper exercise of personal jurisdiction in cases involving activity in cyberspace. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant whose website was accessible to New York residents.

<i>CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.</i> American legal proceeding

CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, was a United States legal case in which CollegeSource sued AcademyOne for a number of claims including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

<i>Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.</i>

Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328, was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that operator of website, for which server was located in California, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri under "commission of a tortious act" provision of Missouri's long-arm statute, §506.500 RSMo. The case was brought before the court by Marits, Inc. alleging that the Cybergold's use of mark for advertising internet site was a trademark infringement. Cybergold moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court found that the operational nature of the Internet based service provided a connection for Cybergold to be sued in Missouri.

DC Comics v. Mark Towle was a copyright case heard in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in September 2015. The case concerned defendant Mark Towle, who built and sold replicas of the Batmobile in his garage named 'Garage Gotham'. DC Comics initially filed a lawsuit, in May 2011, in the federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of Mark's manufacture and sale of replicas. The plaintiffs, DC Comics, claimed the infringement of their copyright as the replicas sold by Mark were similar to the ones that appeared in 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film Batman. The issue discussed by the court was "whether a character in a comic book, television program or motion picture is entitled to copyright protection". The ninth circuit followed the precedents and came up with a three-part test to determine the protection given to such characters.

References

  1. 1 2 , Full opinion from the Court
  2. ↑ Allan Ides. Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.: Ninth Circuit Examines Personal Jurisdiction in the Context of Internet Contacts, 2011 Emerging Issues 6095. LexisNexis (2011).
  3. ↑ As explained in Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008).
  4. ↑ Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 — U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011).
  5. ↑ Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984).
  6. ↑ As explained in Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)).
  7. ↑ As ruled in Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).
  8. ↑ Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476–78, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985).
  9. ↑ Part of the opinion that explains the effects test
  10. ↑ Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010), Opinion from the court in this case quoting Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme (LICRA), 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).
  11. ↑ Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.