## Facts

- Zippo Manufacturing Co., a Pennsylvania corporation, owned trademark rights in the ZIPPO name associated with its products.
- Zippo Dot Com, Inc., a California corporation, operated an Internet website and USENET news service using the domain names zippo.com, zippo.net, and zipponews.com.
- The website provided company information, advertisements, and an online application for paid news-service subscriptions.
- Users could subscribe at different levels; paying subscribers submitted applications and paid by credit card over the Internet or by telephone and then received passwords to access content from servers located in California.
- Zippo Manufacturing sued alleging federal trademark infringement, dilution, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and related Pennsylvania law claims.
- Zippo Dot Com had no offices, employees, or agents in Pennsylvania; its forum contacts occurred through Internet-based transactions.
- Zippo Dot Com had roughly 140,000 paying subscribers worldwide, including about 3,000 Pennsylvania residents.
- Zippo Dot Com contracted with seven Pennsylvania Internet access providers to facilitate access to its services, including two located in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- Zippo Dot Com moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether a Pennsylvania federal court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a California Internet business whose forum contacts consisted of online subscriptions and contracts with forum residents and Internet service providers.
2. Whether venue was proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania given the defendant’s Internet-based contacts with the district.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that Zippo Dot Com purposefully availed itself of conducting business in Pennsylvania by entering into contracts with Pennsylvania residents and Pennsylvania Internet access providers involving repeated Internet transmissions.
- The court found the claims arose out of the same Internet-based conduct that created the forum contacts.
- The court held that exercising jurisdiction comported with fair play and substantial justice.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss for improper venue and declined to transfer, concluding venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

## Legal Principles

- Specific jurisdiction requires minimum contacts, relatedness (claims arising out of or relating to those contacts), and consistency with fair play and substantial justice.
- Purposeful availment is shown when a defendant intentionally conducts commercial activity with forum residents such that being sued there is reasonably foreseeable.
- Internet-based jurisdiction turns on the nature and quality of online commercial activity, not mere website accessibility.
- A “sliding scale” applies: (a) jurisdiction is proper where a defendant clearly does business online by contracting with forum residents involving knowing and repeated Internet transmissions; (b) jurisdiction is generally improper based solely on a passive, informational website; (c) for interactive sites, jurisdiction depends on interactivity and the commercial character of online exchanges.
- Venue is proper where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district under the applicable federal venue statute.

## Conclusion

The court exercised specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state Internet company because it knowingly entered into ongoing, commercial online relationships with thousands of forum residents and multiple forum service providers, and the trademark claims were tied to that conduct; venue in the district was therefore proper.


Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)