|
''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 (i.e. sites that serve only to publish information, rather than to engage in commercial activity or collect information from a user) do not establish personal jurisdiction outside the state in which they are based.〔''(Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. )'', 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).〕 ==Facts of the Case== Plaintiff Cybersell, Inc. (Cybersell AZ), an Arizona corporation with principals Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, was incorporated in May 1994 providing advertisements for commercial services over the Internet. In August 1994, Cybersell AZ filed an application to register the name “Cybersell” as a service mark, and was approved for trademark registration using cyber.sell.com in October 1995. In February 1995, the site was then taken down for reconstruction. In May 1995, while Cybersell AZ was in the process of registering as a federal service mark, Cybersell, Inc. (Cybersell FL), a Florida corporation formed “to provide business consulting services for strategic management and marketing on the web” established a website advertising its services at cybsell.com.〔''(Cybersell, Inc. v Cybersell, Inc. )'', 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).〕 Cybersell FL used their website to provide contact information for their business, including their phone number and email address. After Cybersell AZ learned of Cybersell FL's website and use of their "Cybersell" service mark, Cybersell AZ notified Cybersell FL that they were infringing on Cybersell AZ's mark. As a result, Cybersell FL changed their name to WebHorizons, and later to WebSolvers, Inc., “to disassociate themselves” from Cybersell AZ, however, they left “Welcome to Cybersell!” on their web page.〔 Cybersell AZ then filed the complaint in this action alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, fraud, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.〔On the same day, Cybersell FL filed for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The action was transferred to the Arizona District Court where it was consolidated with the action filed by Cybersell AZ. ''Cybersell'', 130 F.3d at 416.〕 Cybersell AZ alleged that personal jurisdiction over Cybersell FL was proper because the internet is without borders, and a website which advertises a product or service is necessarily intended for use on a worldwide basis. Cybersell FL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and Cybersell AZ appealed.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|