Indiana Intellectual Property Law News
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney and Photographer Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Halcyon Business Publications, Inc., of New York infringed his “Indianapolis Photo” which has been registered with the United States Copyright Office as Registration No. VA0001785115. After review of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction which was filed on December 29, 2017 the court granted the Motion to Dismiss on May 24, 2018.
Bell, who has brought many similar lawsuits for infringement of his Indianapolis Photo, initially filed this case on November 29, 2017 alleging violations of the Lanham Act and copyright infringement. Halcyon claimed that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the company as they do not maintain any offices in the state, have no employees in the state, and have no assets in the state of Indiana. They did adm
it that they hired one Indiana resident as an independent contractor to write for their publication, but that contractor did not write the article that utilized the Indianapolis Photo. Further, the total amounts of advertising sold to Indiana companies by Halcyon amounted to 3.26% and 4.55% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and Indiana subscribers to the publication comprised less than 3% of their total subscribers.
Here, the Court must only look at whether the personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Federal Due Process Clause as Indiana’s long-arm statute is analyzed under this issue. For this, a defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state and purposefully avail themselves “of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum [s]tate, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987). This allows a defendant to reasonably anticipate being brought into a forum in a foreign jurisdiction.
The Court held that Halcyon does not have the continuous and systemic contacts with Indiana in order to render it subject to the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. Further, the Court held that the claim against the Defendant did not arise out of or relate to the Defendant’s conduct within the forum state, meaning the Court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction against them. The Court also noted that “in support of his contentions, Mr. Bell relies largely on his own declaration replete with allegations unsupported by personal knowledge, unauthenticated exhibits, and citations to interrogatory answers that do not contain the propositions for which they are cited.” This case was dismissed without prejudice.
Practice Tip: “If the defendant merely operates a website, even a ‘highly interactive’ website, that is accessible from, but does not target, the forum state, then the defendant may not be haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.” Be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555, 558 (7th Cir. 2011).
The case was assigned to Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Mark J. Dinsmore in the Southern District and assigned case number 1:17-cv-04418-SEB-MJD.