Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.

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

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionInternet Jurisdictionminimum contactspurposeful directionexpress aiming

Facts

Mavrix, a Florida celebrity photo agency with some California operations, alleged that Brand, an Ohio corporation operating celebrity-gossip.net, reposted Mavrix's copyrighted photos of Fergie and Josh Duhamel without permission. Brand's website was nationally popular, focused on the entertainment industry, and generated revenue by selling advertising space; some ads on the site were directed to Californians, indicating a substantial California audience. Brand also had several California business relationships, but it had no offices, staff, registration, or tax presence in California. Mavrix alleged that Brand's reposting destroyed the market value of the photos.

Issue

Whether California courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over Brand consistent with due process. More specifically, whether Brand's California-related contacts were sufficient for general jurisdiction or, alternatively, whether Brand purposefully directed the alleged copyright infringement at California so as to support specific jurisdiction.

Rule

General jurisdiction exists only when a defendant's affiliations with the forum are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home there, approximating physical presence. In tort-based cases, specific jurisdiction may be based on purposeful direction under the Calder effects test: the defendant must commit an intentional act, expressly aim it at the forum state, and cause harm the defendant knows is likely to be suffered there; a nationally accessible website is not enough by itself, but a website with national scope that appeals to and profits from a substantial audience in the forum can be expressly aimed at that state.

🔒

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.

Lakefront Snap, a Nevada photo agency, sues North Coast Buzz, an Illinois corporation, in federal court in New York for copyright infringement after North Coast reposts exclusive photos of Broadway actors. North Coast runs a nationally popular entertainment website funded by ad sales, and analytics known to North Coast show a large New York readership; many ads on the site are specifically directed to New York nightlife and theatergoers.

Is a New York court most likely to find purposeful direction satisfied?

Explanation. In tort-like cases such as copyright infringement, the majority applies Calder’s purposeful-direction test: intentional act, express aiming, and foreseeable forum harm. National accessibility alone is insufficient, but a commercial website with national scope that appeals to and profits from a substantial audience in the forum is expressly aimed there. Here, the defendant knowingly monetizes a substantial New York audience through targeted ads and reposted the photos intentionally, so purposeful direction is likely established. (Derived from Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. (n.d.).)