X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In the late 1990s, I & JC Corp., a Florida company, had a business relationship with the supplier of Karina hair and beauty products. Helen of Troy, a Texas hair and beauty product company, acquired Karina in 1999. The subsequent relationship between I & JC and Helen of Troy deteriorated, resulting in a dispute about the credit arrangement between the parties. Helen of Troy rejected I & JC’s offer to return several thousand dollars worth of hair products for credit. I & JC denied that it owed anything more to Helen of Troy except products, that is, not money. Shortly after the relationship with Helen of Troy ended, I & JC began marketing products under the name “Camila Paris.” Helen of Troy said the products were substantially similar to its Karina products and used Karina’s “trade dress.” Helen of Troy sued I & JC for trademark and trade dress infringement, as well as breach of contract and unfair competition. Helen of Troy also sued Bayside Brush Co., to which I & JC had previously transferred the its hair accessory distribution business. Both defendants filed a special appearance challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction over them. In response, Helen of Troy alleged five grounds for establishing jurisdiction: 1. breach of contract, 2. trade dress infringement, 3. trademark infringement, 4. interactive websites, and 5. alter ego. The trial court denied the special appearances. Despite requests from both sides, the trial court did not file findings of fact or conclusions of law. The defendants did not file a notice of past due findings and conclusions. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court says it would have been “helpful” if the lower court had articulated its findings of facts and conclusions of law, but because it didn’t, the court will presume that the lower court found all necessary facts to support the judgment. Even without the findings, however, the court says there is still ample record evidence to support the trial court’s implied findings. As to the breach-of-contract claim, the court says that even though the existence of a contract is not necessarily enough to confer jurisdiction on Texas courts, there was more than just a contract in this case. There had been various communications by both sides related to the underlying contract for purchase and sale of goods. The trial court’s implied findings of minimum contacts related to the contract claim was proper. The court says there are minimum contacts permitting the exercise of jurisdiction over the tort action, too, because the trade dress and trademark infringement were committed in Texas. The evidence of possible trademark infringement comes in the form of Bayside’s use of the Karina name in the meta tags on Bayside’s Web site. The court next examines the interactive Web site to see if it forms a sufficient basis on which to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants. Jurisdiction in cases involving interactive Web sites is determined by the degree of interaction, the court explains, and Texas courts have used this test in determining whether an Internet site is sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over a defendant. The Bayside Web site was interactive in that individuals, including those in Texas, may order products off the site. The Camila Paris products were also available to Texas residents through the Web site. This is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s implied finding that the Bayside Web site is more than just a passive site. The court also finds enough evidence to support the finding that Bayside was I & JC’s alter ego. The businesses were run by the same two people, they shared the office, address, telephone number, officers, directors and shareholders. The financial operations are handled as one corporation’s. Consequently, the minimum contacts of one can be imputed to the other. Finally, the court finds that nothing shows that litigation in Texas would be unfair or unreasonable to either defendant. “Given the companies’ activities and voluntary use of the Karina trademark on their interactive website, [the defendants] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Texas in a suit pertaining to the torts of trade dress infringement and trademark infringement.” OPINION:Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.