The American Honda charges a franchise fee

Contrary to trend expansion of jurisdiction

CK • Washington. Creators can claim jurisdiction in their local courts if the new December 18, 2012, San Francisco District Court of Appeals ruling stands. The copyright infringement only has to target the state in which the author is resident and suffers damage.

In the case Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc.The court examined whether the business activity directed by the non-state copyright infringer in the state of the author, even without personal presence, representatives, shops, branches, advertising, accounts, internet exposure or other factors based on jurisdiction, is sufficient for the affirmation of local jurisdiction. Contrary to the trend, his examination resulted in an expansion of the principles for personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiff from Washington makes shoes and found Chinese imitations on the defendant in Arkansas. He does not operate a website, but people connected to him sell shoes on eBay through another company. After receiving a warning, the defendant promised improvement and sold his remaining stock to an aid project for the poor.

The decisive factor for the court was that the defendant obtained catalogs from the plaintiff, knew about copyright protection, deliberately sold the remaining items with knowledge of the same, foresaw the resulting damage to the plaintiff in her home country, and the infliction of damage thus foreseeably triggered damage in the forum state. From this the court deduces that it took purposeful actions against the plaintiff in the forum state which justify the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant in the plaintiff's home state.