KANSAS CITY – A federal court has dismissed a case over allegations of trademark infringement, finding that the court does not have jurisdiction in the case.
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in the Western Division granted defendant US Insurance Claim Solutions Inc.'s motion to dismiss ClaimSolution Inc.’s case against it on April 30.
ClaimSolution is an insurance processing company and owns the trademark CLAIMSOLUTION. Meanwhile, U.S. Claim Solutions registered the website, www.claimsolutions.net, and uses it to advertise its product.
U.S. District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark
| Wikipedia
The ruling states in December 2017, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant stating that it was infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark and demanded it to cease its use. The plaintiff later filed its suit over allegations of trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting.
Ketchmark said that the court does not possess general jurisdiction over the defendant in the state.
“Defendant is neither incorporated in nor maintains its principal place of business in Missouri,” she wrote. “The complaint does not allege facts that could establish that this is ‘an exceptional case’ that would make defendant subject to general jurisdiction in Missouri.”
The judge expressed a similar statement concerning specific jurisdiction. She pointed to Missouri’s long-arm statute and said the plaintiff failed to back its claim that the defendant’s speculated acts makes the defendant subject to the Missouri long-arm statute. Plus, a website isn’t enough to prove specific jurisdiction, yet the defendant’s website was the basis of the argument.
Since the defendant's alleged conduct does not fall under Missouri’s long-arm statute, Ketchmark said the court did not need to address the due process argument of the two-prong test.
The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery, stating, “Plaintiff has not shown how jurisdictional discovery would supplement plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations. Without more, jurisdictional discovery is inappropriate.”