Inset, a Connecticut corporation, owned the federally registered trademark INSET. Instruction Set, a Massachusetts corporation with no office or employees in Connecticut and no regular business there, used the domain name "INSET.COM" to advertise its goods and services and also used the toll-free number "1-800-US-INSET." Its Internet advertising had been continuously available since at least March 1995 and was accessible to at least 10,000 Internet users in Connecticut. Inset sued in Connecticut, claiming trademark infringement and related state-law violations.
Issue
Whether a Massachusetts corporation that continuously advertised through an Internet domain name and a toll-free number was subject to personal jurisdiction in Connecticut under C.G.S. § 33-411(c)(2) and the Due Process Clause. The court also considered whether venue in Connecticut was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Rule
A foreign corporation is subject to suit in Connecticut under C.G.S. § 33-411(c)(2) when the cause of action arises out of business repeatedly solicited in Connecticut, including repeated solicitation by Internet advertising. Due process is satisfied when the defendant purposefully directs continuing advertising activities toward Connecticut so that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, and when exercising jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. For venue purposes, a corporate defendant resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Blue Harbor Analytics, a New Jersey corporation based in Newark, sells software consulting services nationwide. It has no office or employees in Connecticut, but for eight months it has continuously maintained a public website advertising its services and inviting customers to call a toll-free number; the site is accessible to thousands of internet users in Hartford and New Haven. A Connecticut company sues in federal court in Connecticut, alleging its mark is infringed by the name used on Blue Harbor's website and toll-free line.
Under the majority's reasoning, is Connecticut's long-arm statute most likely satisfied?
Explanation. The majority held that C.G.S. § 33-411(c)(2) reaches a foreign corporation when the cause of action arises out of business repeatedly solicited in Connecticut, and it treated continuous internet advertising as repeated solicitation because the advertising remains continually available to many Connecticut users. The opinion did not require an office, employees, regular in-state operations, or accepted Connecticut orders. The added toll-free number reinforced the solicitation. (Derived from Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc. (n.d.).)