## Facts

- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC manufactured and sold PepperBall-branded nonlethal irritant projectiles after acquiring the PepperBall trademarks and related assets in 2012 through a foreclosure sale.
- Real Action Paintball, Inc., a California company, was contacted by a former supplier connected to pre-foreclosure PepperBall production about purchasing irritant projectiles.
- Real Action posted website statements and sent a mass email announcing it could sell projectiles “compatible with PepperBall launchers,” allegedly implying it had rights to PepperBall products or was an authorized successor source.
- The email and website content were accessible nationwide; the email list included some Indiana recipients.
- After receiving a cease-and-desist letter, Real Action added a disclaimer stating it was not affiliated with Advanced Tactical.
- Advanced Tactical sued Real Action and its president, K.T. Tran, in the Northern District of Indiana for trademark infringement and related claims.
- Real Action contested personal jurisdiction; the district court nevertheless granted a preliminary injunction against Real Action, and Real Action appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana courts had specific personal jurisdiction over a California defendant based on a nationwide email blast, an interactive website accessible in Indiana, and a small number of shipments into Indiana.
2. Whether alleged trademark-related injury felt by an Indiana-based plaintiff, without Indiana-targeted conduct by the defendant, can satisfy the “effects” theory of specific jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the Northern District of Indiana lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Real Action and Tran.
- The court remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Specific jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum-state contacts and that the defendant purposefully directed conduct at the forum.
- The minimum-contacts inquiry focuses on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not merely contacts with forum residents or the plaintiff’s location.
- A nationwide email campaign that happens to reach forum recipients, without forum-specific targeting, does not by itself establish purposeful direction toward the forum.
- Operating an interactive website accessible in the forum does not, standing alone, create a forum contact sufficient for specific jurisdiction; additional evidence of forum targeting is required.
- Sporadic shipments into the forum are insufficient where the plaintiff fails to show a concrete nexus between those shipments and the asserted claims.
- Under the post-Walden limits on the Calder effects theory, a plaintiff’s in-forum injury (including economic harm at its principal place of business) cannot be the sole link between the defendant and the forum.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit required forum-directed conduct connected to the trademark claims and rejected jurisdiction based on an accessible website, a nationwide email blast, and unconnected, sporadic sales into Indiana, ordering dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.


Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014)