Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16326, 99 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1562, 647 F.3d 1218 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A nonresident commercial website operator can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in a forum state if it intentionally targets and profits from a substantial audience in that state, and the legal claim arises from activities specifically exploiting that forum's market.
Facts:
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. (Mavrix), a Florida corporation, is a celebrity photo agency that licenses and sells candid celebrity photos, with many photographed celebrities residing in Southern California, and maintains a Los Angeles office.
- Brand Technologies, Inc. (Brand), an Ohio corporation, operates celebrity-gossip.net, a popular website covering entertainment personalities with photo galleries, videos, and articles, and features interactive options for visitors.
- Brand's website generates revenue from third-party advertisements, some of which target California jobs, hotels, and vacations, and has business relationships with several California-based companies for advertising, web hosting, and site maintenance.
- Mavrix registered a copyright for 35 photos of celebrities Stacy Ferguson (Fergie) and Josh Duhamel taken in the Bahamas.
- Brand subsequently reposted these copyrighted photos on its celebrity-gossip.net website.
- Mavrix alleges that Brand's unauthorized reposting destroyed the market value of the photos, causing economic harm.
Procedural Posture:
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. sued Brand Technologies, Inc. and Brad Mandell in federal district court for the Central District of California, alleging copyright infringement.
- Brand moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- The district court denied Mavrix's request for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
- The district court granted Brand's motion to dismiss.
- Mavrix appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 nonresident commercial website operator that posts copyrighted material related to the entertainment industry, attracting a substantial audience and generating revenue from a forum state, have sufficient minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction in that state when sued for copyright infringement?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Fletcher
Yes, Brand is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California because it purposefully directed its commercial activities towards the forum state by intentionally exploiting the California market through its celebrity-focused website, and the alleged copyright infringement caused foreseeable harm within California. The court first determined that Brand did not have sufficient continuous and systematic contacts for general personal jurisdiction in California, as its business relationships and interactive website features did not approximate a physical presence. However, for specific personal jurisdiction, the court applied the Calder "effects" test, finding that Brand committed an intentional act by reposting the photos. It expressly aimed its activities at California by "continuously and deliberately exploiting" the California market, given the website's focus on the California-centered celebrity industry and its commercial gain from a substantial California user base, as demonstrated by targeted advertisements. The court concluded that it was foreseeable that the economic loss from copyright infringement would be suffered in California, where a significant portion of the photos' value was derived from the California audience, thereby satisfying the "causing harm" prong. As Brand did not argue that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, the three-prong specific jurisdiction test was met.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying how personal jurisdiction applies to online commercial activities, particularly in the context of the Calder "effects" test. It expands upon the Keeton principle, demonstrating that a purely digital presence can constitute "express aiming" if a website actively seeks and profits from a market in a specific state. This means that online entities cannot simply rely on a lack of physical presence to avoid jurisdiction in states where they derive significant commercial benefit. It also distinguishes between general and specific jurisdiction in the internet context, emphasizing that even highly interactive websites may not establish general jurisdiction without continuous and systematic contacts, but can still meet the lower bar for specific jurisdiction if they purposefully target a forum.
