Robert C. Perry v. Righton.com

This was a trademark infringement action brought by a Oregon resident and distributor of theft prevention devices for computers and other office equipment, against rightOn.com, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, Calfornia. Plaintiff owns the trademark Righton, used to designate an anti-theft device which attaches to laptop computers. RightOn.Com offers Internet-based scheduling and appointment management services. Righton.com is the owner of the Internet domain name righton.com.

Robert Perry registered Righton with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1987. Andrew Sacks and Indu Bingham, the owners of RightOn.Com purchased the domain name from an individual in Virginia in 1999. Sacks and Bingham claimed that they had never hear of Perry or any product sold by him. At the time plaintiff filed his complaint, Righton.com had not engaged in any national advertising and had not directed any marketing activities toward Oregon. It also had not sold any product or service in Oregon, nor had it accepted inquiries from Oregon residents for the sale of any product or service.

In November 1999, Perry filed a complaint against rightOn.com with Network Solutions, Inc., which has the authority to register and administer domain names. As a consequence of the complaint, rightOn.Com's domain name was placed on hold. Once a domain name is placed on hold, it cannot be used by anyone; rightOn.com was therefore unable to use its web site, and persons attempting to access its Internet site, and persons attempting to access its Internet address or send e-mail to individuals using the domain name were unable to do so.

Righton.com attempted without success to persuade Perry to withdraw the NSI complaint. It then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-dilution and an injunction compelling Perry to withdraw the NSI complaint. rightOn.com later dismissed the complaint and sought resolution under new procedures implemented by NSI in January 2000. In the interim, however, Perry filed this action, which forestalled the use of NSI's dispute resolution procedures.
Defendant move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Motion to dismiss sustained.

Unknown

Unknown

This case is one of a growing number of decisions being rendered by the various federal district courts that are developing a body of law relating to the rules for the exercise of jurisdiction over Internet companies. Simply registering another's trademark as a domain name and posting an essentially passive site on the Internet is insufficient to subject a party domiciled in one state of jurisdiction in another. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).

Reported by Kent Morlan