Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.
Case in American intellectual property law / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011), is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.[1][2]
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Argued | Oct. 8, 2010 |
Decided | Aug. 8, 2011 |
Citation(s) | 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | motion to dismiss granted, 2009 WL 3063062 (C.D. Cal. 2009) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, and Barbara M. Lynn |
Keywords | |
Personal jurisdiction in internet cases in the United States, Personal jurisdiction |
This case had three significant holdings. First, the defendant, Brand Technologies, Inc., lacked sufficient contacts with California for exercise of general jurisdiction. Second, the defendant's alleged copyright infringement on its website was expressly aimed at California enough to find specific jurisdiction. Finally, the defendant's alleged copyright infringement caused harm that it recognized was likely to be suffered in California enough to find specific jurisdiction.