## Facts

- Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. (Bancorp) is a Kentucky banking institution that used “Community Trust” as a mark in connection with banking and financial services.
- Bancorp alleged it had used the mark for years and operated a website (allegedly at **ctbi.com**) through which customers could conduct online banking and related transactions.
- The defendants—Community Trust Financial Corporation, Community Trust Bank, and Community Trust Bank of Texas—were financial institutions based in Texas and Louisiana, with branch offices in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
- Defendants used “Community Trust” (and related names such as “Community Trust Bank”) in their banking business and branding and offered online banking through a website (allegedly **ctbonline.com**).
- Defendants had no offices, branches, employees, or property in Kentucky and did not advertise in Kentucky.
- Out of roughly 69,000 customers, nine defendants’ customers had Kentucky addresses; each of those accounts was originally opened outside Kentucky.
- Four of the nine customers with Kentucky addresses maintained online banking access with defendants.
- Bancorp sued defendants in the Eastern District of Kentucky asserting trademark infringement and unfair competition, alleging defendants’ use of “Community Trust” suggested an affiliation or common source and was likely to confuse consumers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing Kentucky lacked personal jurisdiction because defendants’ Kentucky contacts were minimal and not purposefully directed to the forum.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eastern District of Kentucky could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state bank defendants in a trademark case based on (a) defendants’ online banking website and (b) defendants’ continuing banking relationships with a small number of customers who had Kentucky addresses.

## Decision

- The court **denied** defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss.
- The court held that, at this stage, defendants’ online banking activities and their continuing relationships with customers who had Kentucky addresses were enough to support **specific personal jurisdiction** in Kentucky.
- The court emphasized that defendants were not merely operating a passive website; they provided online banking services and maintained ongoing customer relationships that included Kentucky-address customers.
- The court ruled only on personal jurisdiction and did not decide the merits of Bancorp’s trademark and unfair-competition claims.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court sitting in diversity or federal-question jurisdiction analyzes personal jurisdiction under the forum state’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.
- **Specific jurisdiction** generally requires: (1) purposeful availment (defendant’s deliberate forum-related conduct), (2) claims arising from or relating to that conduct, and (3) reasonableness (fair play and substantial justice).
- A website’s role in personal jurisdiction depends on its function and use; a transaction-capable site that facilitates ongoing commercial dealings with forum residents can support purposeful availment more readily than a purely informational site.
- A defendant’s lack of physical presence and lack of forum-directed advertising do not automatically defeat specific jurisdiction if the defendant maintains continuing relationships with forum residents through deliberate, repeated transactions.
- A forum resident’s unilateral move into the forum does not alone create jurisdiction, but a defendant’s continued servicing of a customer after learning the customer has a forum address may be considered in the minimum-contacts analysis.

## Conclusion

Community Trust Bancorp held that Kentucky could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Texas and Louisiana bank defendants sued for trademark infringement where defendants operated online banking services and maintained ongoing banking relationships with a small number of customers who had Kentucky addresses, making it appropriate—at the pleading stage—to require defendants to defend the suit in Kentucky.


Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. v. Community Trust Financial Corp., 2011 WL 673751 (2011)