Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · 1997 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionVenueInternet Jurisdictionminimum contactspurposeful availmentspecific jurisdictionInternet

Facts

Plaintiff Zippo Manufacturing Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation based in Bradford, Pennsylvania, and defendant Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is a California corporation based in Sunnyvale, California. Dot Com operated an Internet web site and online news service, held the domain names "zippo.com," "zippo.net," and "zipponews.com," and sold subscription access through online applications and password assignments. Dot Com had about 140,000 paying subscribers worldwide, including approximately 3,000 Pennsylvania residents, and it also entered contracts with seven Pennsylvania Internet access providers, two in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff's trademark claims were based on Dot Com's use of the word "Zippo" in its domain names, web site, and message headings transmitted to and viewed in Pennsylvania.

Issue

Whether a Pennsylvania federal court could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a California Internet company whose contacts with Pennsylvania occurred almost entirely online, and whether venue was proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania. More specifically, the court had to decide whether Dot Com's Internet activities constituted purposeful availment of doing business in Pennsylvania.

Rule

The likelihood that personal jurisdiction may be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity conducted over the Internet. At one end are defendants clearly doing business over the Internet by entering contracts with forum residents involving knowing and repeated transmission of computer files; personal jurisdiction is proper there. At the other end, a passive web site that merely makes information available is not enough; in the middle, for interactive web sites, jurisdiction depends on the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange. Specific jurisdiction also requires minimum contacts, that the claim arise out of those contacts, and that jurisdiction be reasonable.

🔒

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 Grove Outfitters, an Oregon company, runs a website that lists its products, store hours, and a customer-service email address. Customers in Ohio cannot place orders, create accounts, or download paid content through the site. An Ohio competitor sues Cascade Grove in federal court in Cleveland for trademark infringement based solely on the website’s display of the disputed mark.

Is the Ohio court most likely to have specific personal jurisdiction over Cascade Grove?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion’s sliding-scale approach, a passive website that does little more than make information available is not enough for specific personal jurisdiction. The key inquiry is the nature and quality of the commercial activity conducted over the Internet. Here, the site is informational only, with no online contracts, sales, or repeated file transmissions into Ohio, so purposeful availment is lacking. (Derived from Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (1997).)