Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Bird v. Parsons

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionInternet Contactspersonal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictiongeneral jurisdictioninternetinteractive website

Facts

Bird, an Ohio citizen, operated a software business under the name Financia and owned the domain name financia.com. Parsons registered efinancia.com through Dotster, an ICANN-accredited domain-name registrar based in Washington, and parked the domain on Dotster's Futurehome page; Afternic then listed efinancia.com on its auction site. Bird alleged that Dotster had accepted business from approximately 4,666 Ohio residents through its website, which allowed Ohio residents to register domain names online. Bird sued Afternic, Dotster, George DeCarlo, and Steven Vincent for trademark, copyright, dilution, and ACPA violations arising out of the registration and attempted sale of efinancia.com.

Issue

Whether Ohio courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident Dotster defendants based on their internet-based contacts with Ohio, and whether Bird stated claims against Afternic and the Dotster defendants for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, ACPA violations, and copyright infringement.

Rule

In a federal-question case, personal jurisdiction exists only if the defendant is amenable to service under the forum state's long-arm statute and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. Specific jurisdiction in the Sixth Circuit is evaluated under the Mohasco test: the defendant must purposefully avail itself of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence there, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there, and the defendant's acts or their consequences must have a substantial enough connection with the forum to make jurisdiction reasonable. Operation of an interactive website can constitute purposeful availment if the site reveals specifically intended interaction with forum residents. General jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts, and a passive or merely accessible website is insufficient.

🔒

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.

Cascade Domain Services is incorporated and headquartered in Oregon. Through its website, customers in Kentucky can search availability, create accounts, pay online, and immediately register domain names; the company has processed thousands of registrations for Kentucky residents. A Louisville software firm sues Cascade in federal court in Kentucky over a disputed domain registration that Cascade processed through that site.

Assuming no evidentiary hearing has been held, which is the strongest argument that Kentucky may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Cascade?

Explanation. In a federal-question case, the court looks to the forum state's long-arm statute and due process. Under the Sixth Circuit's Mohasco framework, purposeful availment can be shown by an interactive website revealing specifically intended interaction with forum residents. A site through which residents actually register and pay for domain names, coupled with regular business from those residents, supports purposeful availment for specific jurisdiction. Mere accessibility is not enough, and physical presence is not required. (Derived from Bird v. Parsons (n.d.).)