Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionmotiontrademarkcorporationmotion to dismissdeclaratory judgment
plaintiffjurisdictionmotioncorporationcivil proceduredeclaratory judgment

Related Cases

Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540, 23 S.Ct. 754, 47 L.Ed. 1171
View Case »
Bronowski v. Magnus Enterprises, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 879, 402 N.Y.S.2d 868
View Case »
Dedmon v. Steelman, 535 S.W.3d 431
View Case »
West v. DOCCS, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 2901330
View Case »
Lone Tree Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1520904
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

American Intercontinental University, Inc. v. American University, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 3478805, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156

Facts

Career Education Corporation (CEC) is the parent company of American InterContinental University, which has been using the name 'American InterContinental University' since 1997. American University (AU), a non-profit corporation based in Washington, D.C., operates its own university and has conducted various recruitment activities in Illinois. AU filed an opposition to CEC's trademark application, claiming a likelihood of confusion with its own registered marks. The dispute escalated into a lawsuit when CEC sought a declaratory judgment regarding its use of the trademark.

American InterContinental is a Georgia corporation that owns a regionally accredited post-secondary education institution that operates under the name American InterContinental University.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the court had personal jurisdiction over American University in Illinois.

AU has moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Rule

Personal jurisdiction is established if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

Analysis

The court analyzed whether AU had purposefully directed its activities at Illinois or availed itself of the privilege of conducting business there. It concluded that AU's activities, including its trademark opposition filed in Virginia, did not constitute sufficient contacts with Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the relevant contacts must stem from the defendant's own actions in the forum state.

The essential disagreement between the parties concerns what conduct gives rise to a plaintiff's claim for a declaratory judgment in this context.

Conclusion

The court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over American University and allowed the plaintiffs to propose an appropriate jurisdiction for transfer.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over AU but reserves dismissal of the case until it considers the possibility of transfer.

Who won?

American University prevailed in the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the court found insufficient contacts with Illinois to establish jurisdiction.

AU also argues that there is no basis for specific personal jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claims do not arise out of AU's contacts with Illinois.

You must be