Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc.
514 F.3d 1063, 85 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1705, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1870 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Specific personal jurisdiction exists under the 'effects test' when an out-of-state defendant undertakes an intentional action expressly aimed at the forum state with knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt there, and the plaintiff's injuries arise out of the defendant's forum-related activities, provided the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Facts:
- Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors (the Dudnikovs) operated an Internet-based business called “Tabber’s Temptations” from their home in Colorado, selling fabric and crafts on eBay, with their location clearly listed on their auction pages.
- In October 2005, the Dudnikovs launched an eBay auction offering fabric with an imprint of Betty Boop, which utilized a design recognizable as from the artist Erté’s works, “Symphony In Black” and “Ebony On White.”
- SevenArts, a British corporation, owned the copyright to Erté’s works, and Chalk & Vermilion, a Delaware corporation based in Connecticut, was SevenArts’ American agent and a member of eBay’s “Verified Rights Owner” (VeRO) program.
- Chalk & Vermilion, on behalf of SevenArts, filed a Notice of Claimed Infringement (NOCI) with eBay (in California) contesting the Dudnikovs’ Betty Boop fabric sale, which resulted in eBay canceling the auction and notifying the Dudnikovs.
- Karen Dudnikov contacted Chalk & Vermilion and SevenArts by e-mail, explaining that the NOCI jeopardized her eBay-dependent business and requesting its withdrawal.
- After SevenArts declined to withdraw the NOCI and the Dudnikovs filed a counter notice, SevenArts notified Karen Dudnikov by e-mail that it intended to “file an action in the federal court[s]” within 10 days to prevent the auction’s reinstatement.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors (plaintiffs) filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction.
- Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. and SevenArts, Ltd. (defendants) entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- A magistrate judge assigned the case recommended disposition, finding that specific jurisdiction existed over the defendants but general jurisdiction did not.
- The defendants objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
- The district court sustained the defendants’ objection, ruled that neither specific nor general jurisdiction existed, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
- Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors appealed the district court's dismissal to the Tenth Circuit, contesting only the specific jurisdiction question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court in Colorado have specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants whose intentional actions (sending a copyright infringement notice to eBay in California to terminate a Colorado resident's auction and threatening suit) were expressly aimed at Colorado with knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt there, consistent with due process and the Calder 'effects test'?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch, J.
Yes, a federal court in Colorado has specific personal jurisdiction over Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. and SevenArts, Ltd. The court held that the defendants' actions satisfied the Calder "effects test" for purposeful direction and that the plaintiffs' claims arose from these contacts, with no compelling argument against the reasonableness of jurisdiction. First, the defendants undertook an intentional action by sending the NOCI to eBay with the specific intent to terminate the Dudnikovs' auction, knowing it would cause them lost business and a damaged reputation. The plaintiffs' allegations that the copyright claim was erroneous and a "smoke-screen" sufficed to infer wrongful conduct at the motion to dismiss stage. Second, this intentional action was expressly aimed at Colorado. Although the NOCI was sent to eBay in California, it was an "intended means to the further intended end of cancelling plaintiffs' auction in Colorado," akin to a "bank shot" in basketball. Defendants' express aim was to halt a Colorado-based sale by a Colorado resident, and their use of a California-based entity did not diminish this. Plaintiffs' eBay page clearly disclosed their Colorado location, supporting the inference that defendants knew the target was in Colorado. Third, defendants knew the brunt of the injury would be felt in Colorado, as the Dudnikovs' injury (lost business, damaged reputation) was suffered entirely in their home state. The defendants more than merely foresaw or knew the harm; they intended to cause the cancellation of the auction. The court further found that the plaintiffs' claims "arose out of" the defendants' contacts with Colorado, as the NOCI and subsequent litigation threat were both the 'but-for' and proximate cause of the declaratory judgment action. Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction was reasonable and did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The burden on defendants was not shown to be unduly significant, and no unique British policy interests were implicated, as U.S. copyright law governed. The court distinguished this case from mere cease-and-desist letters, noting that defendants here went "well beyond providing notice" by purposefully causing the cancellation of an auction and threatening the viability of the plaintiffs' business, leaving litigation as the only recourse for the Dudnikovs other than capitulation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Calder 'effects test' for specific personal jurisdiction, particularly in the context of internet-based intellectual property enforcement. It establishes that purposeful direction can be found even when the defendant's direct communication is with an out-of-state third party (like eBay), provided the ultimate intended effect targets a known forum resident's business. The ruling underscores that active interference with a forum resident's business operations, beyond mere notification, can be a critical factor in establishing jurisdiction, impacting how intellectual property rights holders approach enforcement against online sellers.
