US jurisdiction case confirms passive web site position

A Californian newspaper called “westsidestory.com” was sued for trademark infringement by a pair of companies that claimed to own the registered trade mark for “West Side Story”.

The newspaper tried to have the case thrown out for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that because the company was based in California and effectively did not trade in New Jersey, it could not be sued in New Jersey. The companies on the other side argued that because westsidestory.com was hosted on a New Jersey server, there was jurisdiction in the state.

The judge said: “Access to a web site reflects nothing more than a telephone call by a district resident to the defendant’s computer servers… This court, therefore, refuses to hold that inter-computer transfers of information, which are analogous to forwarding calls to a desired phone number through a switchboard, should somehow establish sufficient contacts that would subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction.”

He continued to explain that the court’s jurisdiction would depend on a web site’s “degree of interactivity”. If fully interactive (such as an on-line retailer), a site could be grounds for personal jurisdiction; but if “passive”, as in this case, by not allowing information to be exchanged, there was not enough contact for jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. The judge decided this site was passive because it only allowed browsers to contact the company by e-mail on the site and to click-through to advertisers.

Although it would still be possible for the newspaper to be sued in California, this case reinforces the position in the US regarding jurisdiction, that mere presence on the web is not sufficient for a US court to have jurisdiction. For further information, see our guide on Jurisdiction.