## Facts

- uBID, Inc., an Illinois-based Internet auction company, owned trademarks and domains associated with “uBid,” including uBid.com.
- GoDaddy Group, Inc., an Arizona-based domain-name registrar, operated GoDaddy.com and sold domain-registration services nationwide through an interactive commercial website.
- GoDaddy’s physical operations (including headquarters, servers, and most employees) were in Arizona, but it conducted extensive national advertising and obtained millions of customers, including substantial numbers in Illinois.
- uBID alleged GoDaddy registered and maintained confusingly similar or misspelled “uBid” domain names, diverted Internet traffic, and profited by selling advertising on those domains, causing harm to uBID in Illinois.
- uBID sued in the Northern District of Illinois asserting, among other claims, an Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claim, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
- GoDaddy moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted the motion and dismissed.
- uBID appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over GoDaddy consistent with due process based on GoDaddy’s Illinois-directed commercial activities and alleged cybersquatting-related injury to an Illinois plaintiff.
2. Whether uBID’s ACPA claim sufficiently “arose out of or related to” GoDaddy’s Illinois contacts to support specific jurisdiction.
3. Whether requiring GoDaddy to defend in Illinois would be unfair under traditional “fair play and substantial justice” factors.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held GoDaddy purposefully availed itself of the Illinois market through deliberate and continuous exploitation of that market via nationwide marketing and online sales to Illinois customers.
- The court held uBID’s claims bore a sufficient relationship to GoDaddy’s Illinois business activities to make litigation in Illinois foreseeable and constitutionally permissible.
- The court held that litigating in Illinois was not unfair given GoDaddy’s substantial nationwide and Illinois business and the comparative burdens on the parties.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process when the defendant purposefully directs commercial activity at the forum state and the plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to that forum-directed activity.
- A defendant’s lack of physical presence in the forum does not defeat jurisdiction where the defendant deliberately exploits the forum’s market through interactive Internet commerce and targeted (including national) marketing that reaches forum consumers.
- The “relatedness” requirement for specific jurisdiction does not demand that the precise wrongful act occur in the forum; it is enough that the claim is sufficiently connected to the defendant’s forum-directed business that makes the alleged injury possible.
- Fairness supports jurisdiction where the defendant derives substantial benefit from the forum market and can reasonably anticipate being sued there for disputes tied to that benefit.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Illinois could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over GoDaddy because GoDaddy intentionally cultivated and profited from the Illinois market through online commercial services and extensive advertising, and uBID’s cybersquatting-related claims were sufficiently connected to those forum contacts; the dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.


uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010)