## Facts

- Atmos Nation LLC (Atmos) designed and marketed portable vaporizers sold under the “Atmos” brand name.
- Atmos alleged it owned federally registered trademarks associated with the Atmos brand and sold products nationwide, including in Florida.
- Atmos discovered that independent merchants were offering counterfeit vaporizers bearing the Atmos brand through various online platforms that Atmos alleged were owned by Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (Alibaba).
- Atmos alleged Alibaba’s platforms facilitated listings for counterfeit goods, causing harm to Atmos’s trademark rights.
- Alibaba asserted it did not operate the platforms at issue or control the content posted on those platforms, and it did not manufacture, sell, ship, or deliver the products advertised by third-party merchants.
- Alibaba was described as an e-commerce marketing services company incorporated in Delaware with its only office in California.
- Alibaba had no physical presence in Florida, had no employees in Florida, and had no contracts for goods or services with Florida companies or individuals.
- Atmos sued Alibaba under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and contributory trademark counterfeiting.
- Atmos claimed the court could exercise both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Alibaba under Florida’s long-arm statute.
- Alibaba moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether Alibaba was subject to general personal jurisdiction in Florida.
2. Whether Florida’s long-arm statute authorized specific personal jurisdiction over Alibaba based on the alleged counterfeit listings on Alibaba-owned platforms.
3. Whether exercising specific jurisdiction over Alibaba would satisfy federal due process (minimum contacts and fair play).

## Decision

- The court granted Alibaba’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court found no basis for general jurisdiction because Alibaba was not “at home” in Florida and did not have continuous and systematic Florida contacts.
- The court found no basis for specific jurisdiction because Atmos did not show that Alibaba carried on business in Florida or committed a Florida-based tort within the meaning of the long-arm statute, given Alibaba’s lack of Florida-directed conduct and its lack of control over third-party listings.
- The court further concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not satisfy due process because Alibaba did not purposefully direct suit-related conduct at Florida and could not reasonably anticipate being haled into a Florida court based solely on third-party activity on platforms accessible in Florida.
- The dismissal addressed only personal jurisdiction and did not resolve the merits of Atmos’s Lanham Act claims.

## Legal Principles

- General jurisdiction over a corporation is ordinarily limited to the corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business; the defendant must be “at home” in the forum for general jurisdiction to exist.
- An internet presence or an accessible website, without more, does not create general jurisdiction in every state where the site can be reached.
- Florida’s long-arm statute requires a showing that the defendant engaged in qualifying forum activity (such as conducting business in Florida) or committed a tortious act within Florida; alleged injury in Florida, standing alone, is not enough when the defendant did not direct the challenged conduct to Florida.
- For specific jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have suit-related minimum contacts with the forum created through purposeful direction or purposeful availment, and the claims must arise out of those forum contacts.
- Allegations tied to third-party merchants’ online listings are generally insufficient to establish purposeful direction by a platform owner when the owner does not control the listings and does not target the forum state.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Atmos’s Lanham Act claims against Alibaba because Atmos failed to establish either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction in Florida: Alibaba lacked a Florida presence, did not target Florida through its own conduct, and could not be subjected to Florida jurisdiction based on alleged counterfeit listings posted by independent merchants on platforms merely accessible from Florida.


Atmos Nation LLC v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33228 (2016)