## Facts

- Inset Systems, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, owned the federal trademark INSET for computer software and related services.
- Instruction Set, Inc. (ISI), a Massachusetts corporation, advertised competing computer-related services using the domain name **inset.com** and the toll-free number **1-800-US-INSET**.
- Inset alleged ISI’s use of the domain name and toll-free number infringed the INSET mark and created consumer confusion.
- ISI’s website advertising was continuously accessible nationwide, including in Connecticut, and could be repeatedly accessed by Connecticut Internet users.
- Inset sued in the District of Connecticut asserting Lanham Act claims and related Connecticut statutory and common-law claims (including dilution and unfair trade practices).
- ISI had no offices, employees, property, or bank accounts in Connecticut and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

## Issues

1. Whether Connecticut’s long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation based on continuous Internet advertising and use of a toll-free number connected to the alleged infringement.
2. Whether exercising jurisdiction based on those contacts satisfies due process “minimum contacts” and is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
3. Whether venue is proper in the District of Connecticut when jurisdiction is premised on the defendant’s Internet and toll-free solicitation.

## Decision

- The court denied ISI’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
- The court held Connecticut’s long-arm statute was satisfied because ISI’s Internet advertising and toll-free number constituted continuous, repetitive solicitation in Connecticut, and the claims arose from that solicitation.
- The court held due process was satisfied because ISI purposefully directed nationwide advertising into Connecticut, making it foreseeable it could be sued there, and litigation in a neighboring state was not unfair.
- The court held venue was proper because a corporate defendant is deemed to reside in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Continuous Internet advertising accessible in the forum state, coupled with a toll-free number aimed at forum consumers, may constitute “solicitation” sufficient to satisfy a state long-arm statute when the cause of action arises from that solicitation.
- For due process, nationwide Internet and toll-free advertising can support “minimum contacts” where the defendant’s conduct is purposefully directed to reach the forum state and litigation there is reasonably foreseeable.
- In a federal question case, venue is proper in a district where the corporate defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and therefore deemed to reside.

## Conclusion

The court treated continuous Internet advertising and a toll-free number as forum-reaching solicitation tied to the alleged trademark harm, finding both statutory long-arm jurisdiction and constitutional minimum contacts, and upheld venue in Connecticut on that basis.


Inset Sys., Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996)