In 2009 Sportschannel New England filed a declaratory judgment action against Fancaster, Inc. and its president related to Sportschannel’s use of the mark FANCASTER. Fancaster and its president moved to dismiss or transfer for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Judge Gertner granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and thus did not reach the other questions.
The most interesting aspect of this case is the court’s decision that the defendant’s interactive website, accessible to Massachusetts residents, did not result in a purposeful availment of Mass. jurisdiction.
The defendants should feel lucky that they drew Judge Gertner for this case. Judge Gertner is known to be a technology savvy judge, not only for her understanding of tech related issues but also for her incorporation of new technologies into her daily life. She was one of the first judges to incorporate permanent video technology into her courtroom, she favors simultaneous webcasting of courtroom activities (a point with which the First Circuit disagrees), and she received some publicity a number of years ago when she start openly blogging. She could well be considered a “judicial early adopter.”
Her technical understanding (which is correct in my opinion) allowed her to understand the difference between active commercial websites and more passive, but still somewhat interactive, websites.
The opinion’s money quote (opinion at 13):
this Court declines to decide exactly how much interactivity or commercial activity directed to a forum is required to establish personal jurisdiction…I hold merely that a website with the features that are now common, including a registration page, simple trivia, ability to email the website operators, stream-line video, and “fan” or “share” a page or video, cannot be sufficient to enable the site’s owners to be haled into court in any forum in which it’s accessible. Such a result would render virtually every website subject to universal personal jurisdiction.
Sportschannel New England Ltd. Partnership v. Fancaster, Inc., 09-11884-NG (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2010)
Comments