Week 4: The legal system and the Internet: global jurisdiction and dispute settlement?

4.1 National: judicial dispute settlement
Required Readings
Civil jurisdiction:

	Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (SAIL at 775-84); and at http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9617087.html
	Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (SAIL at 784-97); and at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/dncases/zippo.htm
	Heathmount AE Corp. v. Technodome.com , 106 F. Supp.2d 860 (E.D. Va 2000) (in rem jurisdiction): < http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/0000714.htm>
	Michael Geist, Is There a There There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction, 16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1 (Fall 2001), only Part III, "The Rise and Fall of the Zippo":http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistjurisdiction-us.pdf

Criminal jurisdiction:

United States v. Kammersell, 196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir, 1999) (criminal jurisdiction), http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-4177.htm

Transnational jurisdiction:

Note at SAIL 795-9.

Optional Readings

	Bensusan Restaurant Corp v King US Court Appeals, Second Circuit, 1997 126 F 3d 25 cited in SAIL at 794.
	Bochan v. LaFontaine, 68 F.Supp.2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999): noted SAIL at 794; http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990622/1749.htm >
	United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996). (only sections I, II(B), II(C) of opinion): <http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/jan96/96a0032p.06.html>
	Pavlovich v Superior Court of Santa Clara Co. & DVD-CCA (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) http://www.eff.org/Cases/DVDCCA_case/ 20010807_pavlovich_appelate_ruling.html >
	Lucent Technologies Inc v Lucentsucks.com US District Court ED Virginia, 2000, 95 F Supp 2d 528. (In rem jurisdiction)
	US v Dmitry Sklyarov: Notice of Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-esds-nmd.htm.; archive <http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/>
	The American Bar Association's Internet Jurisdiction Project, A Report on Global Jurisdictional Issues Created by the Internet, ABA, 2000, section on jurisdiction and the Internet: <http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/initiatives/proj-documentation.html>
	Dan L. Burk, Jurisdiction in a World Without Borders, 1 Va. J. L. & Tech. 3 (1997), http://vjolt.student.virginia.edu/graphics/vol1/vol1_art3.html
	David Post, An Outline and Summary of Cases for the Perplexed, 1998, http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/outline.htm
	Thomas Lee, In Rem Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 75 Wash L. Rev. 97 (2000) http://eon.law.harvard.edu/h2o/property/jurisdiction/lee.html
	Jay Kesan, Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Brief Summary of Personal Jurisdiction Law, available at: http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/kesan/kesan1.html
	Carl Kaplan, AOL subscribers can be sued in VA, Judge Rules, N.Y. Times, June 11, 1999: www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/cyber/cyberlaw/11law.html>
	Berezovsky v. Michaels and Another, 1 WLR 1004 (May 11, 2000): approach of the English High Court to civil claims.

Transnational jurisdiction

	Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994); noted at SAIL 766-7.
	Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., v Grokster Ltd (2001): <http://www.riaa.com/pdf/complaint.pdf>
	Suit Hits Popular Post-Napster Network, CNet (Oct. 3, 2001): http://news.com.com/2100-1023-273855.html?legacy=cnet
	Draft Hague, International Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment in Civil Matters: Draft Hague Convention": <http://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/jdgm.html>; download June 2001 interim text from < http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/intl-courts/materials.html>
	James Love, As the Hague Conference Diplomatic Conference ends, the Internet and Public Domain are at Risk, June 20, 2001, at <http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/badly.html
	Convention on Cybercrime, (Council of Europe): <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htm>

Non judicial dispute settlement: arbitration

	The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: < http://www.icann.org/udrp/>
	Lawrence R. Helfer and Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 43 WM. & Mary L. Rev. Oct 2001; < http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/intl-courts/docs/dh.pdf>
	Froomkin: Of ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"- Causes and (Partial) Cures: <http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf> (5-10; 73-74)

Discussion

Problem

Techie Solutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides human resources management, consulting, outsourcing, and executive search services. It uses the mark "TECHIE SOLUTIONS" in its business, and has been granted federal registration of the mark by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Interstate namesake Techie Solutions, Inc. is a California corporation that has its principal place of business in San Diego, California. The latter is a research and consulting company that offers human resources related products and services to other organizations. Techie San Diego maintains an internet website using the "TECHIE SOLUTIONS" name. Techie San Diego's web site provides detailed descriptions and interactive pages regarding the products and services it offers. The web site also contains interactive pages that allow customers to test its products, download product demos, obtain product brochures and information, and order products online. Techie Texas wants to sue Techie San Diego over its alleged use of the "TECHIE SOLTIONS" trademark in its business. Techie Texas contends that it is the owner of the "TECHIE SOLUTIONS" trademark and that the San Diego business should cease using it. Techie Texas filed a Complaint on October 13, 2001, asserting claims for federal trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, state trademark infringement, and injury to business reputation. Techie San Diego now moves to dismiss this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), contending that venue is improper in the Northern District of Texas. Consider the issues relating to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.