Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

BE2 LLC v. Ivanov

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionInternet ContactsSpecific Jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictionminimum contactsdue process

Facts

be2 Holding operated the dating website be2.com and sued Nikolay Ivanov, a New Jersey resident allegedly associated with be2.net, for trademark-related claims arising from the operation of that website. Ivanov did not initially appear, and after default judgment the plaintiffs relied in part on Internet printouts showing that 20 users listing Chicago addresses had created free profiles on be2.net. Ivanov later moved to vacate the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, and although the district court found parts of his affidavit not credible, the record still showed no physical ties to Illinois. The only Illinois-related evidence tied to the jurisdictional question was the existence of those 20 Illinois-address profiles on the website.

Issue

Whether Illinois courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ivanov, consistent with due process, based on his operation or involvement with be2.net when the record showed only that 20 users listing Illinois addresses had created free profiles on the site. More specifically, the question was whether that Internet activity showed that Ivanov purposefully targeted or exploited the Illinois market.

Rule

When a federal court in Illinois adjudicates claims for which there is no nationwide service of process, personal jurisdiction must be authorized by Illinois law and the United States Constitution. Due process permits specific jurisdiction only when the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that suit there does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and in the Internet context that requires more than operating an accessible or even interactive website: the defendant must purposefully target or exploit the forum state's market rather than rely on random, fortuitous, attenuated, or unilateral contacts by users.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz, a Nevada resident, runs a subscription-based recipe website from Las Vegas under the name SavorySpark.net. A food blogger in Chicago sues her in federal court in Illinois for trademark infringement after discovering that 18 Illinois residents had created free accounts on the site, but there is no evidence of Illinois-specific ads, Illinois revenue, or direct communications with Illinois users.

Is specific personal jurisdiction in Illinois most likely proper?

Explanation. Specific jurisdiction based on internet activity requires more than operating an accessible or even interactive website. The defendant must purposefully target or exploit the forum state's market. Here, the only Illinois-related facts are a small number of free Illinois accounts, which could reflect unilateral activity by Illinois users rather than conduct directed at Illinois. That is insufficient to establish minimum contacts. (Derived from BE2 LLC v. Ivanov (n.d.).)