Matheson & Associates, PLLC v. Whitcomb Selinsky, PC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted defendant Whitcomb Selinsky, PC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a trademark infringement action involving the marks “Beer Law Center” and “Beer Law HQ.” The court held that defendant’s representation of North Carolina clients, accessible website, attendance at an out-of-state conference, and limited prelitigation email communications did not establish purposeful availment or a sufficient connection between defendant and North Carolina.

Holdings

1. Defendant's representation of a handful of North Carolina clients, together with its other identified contacts, did not establish general personal jurisdiction because defendant was not essentially at home in North Carolina.
2. Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in North Carolina, so specific personal jurisdiction was lacking.
3. The defendant's three representations of North Carolina clients could not support specific personal jurisdiction because plaintiff presented no evidence that those representations formed the basis of its trademark claims.
4. Because defendant demonstrated that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, the complaint had to be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant's contacts with North Carolina established general personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in North Carolina sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction over the Lanham Act trademark-infringement claims.
3. Whether the defendant's website, representation of North Carolina clients, attendance at a Virginia conference, and prelitigation email communications established minimum contacts with North Carolina.

Disposition

dismissed