SEO and Webmastering 24h reports

There are some argument about personal jurisdiction and interactive v. passive websites. One of the examples is action taken by U.S. court toward Canadian defendant that owns a Canadian trademark and domain name identical to a U.S. registered trademark. Some think that applying U.S. law on the foreign defendant is not fair.

However, U.S. Constitutional law allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction referring to two standards, that is, a Constitutional law standard; and a state standard based on the state’s long-arm statute. In Desktop Techs., Inc. v. Colorworks Reprod. & Design, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1034 (1999), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was to decide whether the court had personal jurisdiction over a Canadian defendant that held a website viewed in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged the Canadian company infringes upon the plaintiff’s trademark by using the word “ColorWorks” as its domain name on the Internet, and this creates unfair competition in the U.S. Since the company does not have business over the Internet with Pennsylvania residents, it is a legitimate business.

It sure is not fair that some states laws are used on person that is not living in the state. Out of borders there should be no law.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Most Related Posts

• No Related Posts Found