## Facts

- An Arizona corporation used the “Cybersell” name for Internet advertising and marketing services and sought federal service-mark registration.
- A Florida corporation later formed to provide web-related consulting and operated a website at “cybsell.com” displaying “Welcome to Cybersell!” and describing services.
- The Florida site provided contact information (phone and email) and invited inquiries but did not permit contracting, ordering, or other online transactions; it functioned as a passive advertisement.
- The Arizona company objected to the Florida company’s use of “Cybersell”; the Florida company changed its corporate name but retained “Welcome to Cybersell!” on the webpage.
- The Arizona company sued in federal court in Arizona for trademark infringement and related claims.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Arizona company appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a passive website that is accessible in Arizona, without forum-directed conduct or online transactions, establishes specific personal jurisdiction in Arizona over Florida defendants in a trademark-based suit.
2. Whether the “effects test” for intentional torts supports Arizona jurisdiction based on alleged trademark harm felt where the mark holder is located.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held the Florida defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of, or purposefully direct conduct toward, Arizona by maintaining a passive webpage accessible there.
- The court held the “effects test” was not satisfied because the conduct was not expressly aimed at Arizona.
- Exercising jurisdiction based only on universal website accessibility would not comport with due process.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction requires: (1) purposeful availment or purposeful direction toward the forum, (2) claims arising out of forum-related activities, and (3) reasonableness consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- A passive website that merely posts information and contact details, without interactive features or commercial transactions with forum residents, does not by itself establish purposeful availment or purposeful direction.
- For intentional tort jurisdiction under the “effects test,” the defendant must commit an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum, causing harm the defendant knows is likely to be suffered there; foreseeable effects in the forum, without express aiming, are insufficient.
- Due process limits are not eliminated by the Internet’s broad reach; otherwise, a website operator could be sued in every state based solely on accessibility.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held Arizona lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Florida defendants whose only asserted Arizona contact was a passive website using the disputed mark, because the defendants neither targeted Arizona nor engaged in online transactions or other forum-directed conduct, and the alleged harm in Arizona was not the result of acts expressly aimed at the state.


Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997)