Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:TravelJungle operates a Web site that gathers hotel, car rental, and airline flight schedules and fare information in response to Internet requests from consumers. With regard to airline information, TravelJungle uses special software to gather the flight and fare information from airlines’ websites and from other travel Web sites, such as Expedia.com and Travelocity.com. Once it obtains that information, it assimilates and sorts the data it obtains from airline and reservation sites and presents it to the requestor. Users of TravelJungle’s Web site search it for flight information by first choosing a departure and arrival city. The Web site then provides the user with several fares and schedules to choose from, which the user can then select to make reservations through TravelJungle’s Web site. TravelJungle is registered in the United Kingdom and has its principal places of business in Germany and Bulgaria. Its servers and employees are located in Germany and Bulgaria, and it has no employees in the U.S. According to TravelJungle, between February 2003 and June 2004, TravelJungle included appellee American Airlines, Inc.’s Web site, AA.com, in its search for flight schedule and fare information, if American provided services between the departure and arrival cities listed in a TravelJungle user’s search. TravelJungle also listed AA.com on its Web site as one of the sites it searched to provide this information and displayed a copy of the American logo on its Web site. In 2004, American sued TravelJungle for breach of AA.com’s Use Agreement, which prohibits users from using the information on the Web site for commercial purposes; tortious interference with American’s contracts with authorized internet distributors of American’s fare and scheduling data; tortious interference with prospective business relations, i.e., consumers who could have booked flights directly on AA.com; trespass of AA.com’s servers; violation of the Texas computer crimes statute; civil conspiracy; common law trademark infringement; violation of the Texas anti-dilution act; and misappropriation. After learning that American had sued it, TravelJungle discontinued accessing AA.com and took American’s logo off its Web site. It also entered a special appearance challenging the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over it. The trial court denied the special appearance after an evidentiary hearing but declined to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. In a single issue on appeal, TravelJungle contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the special appearance, because it negated all possible bases of jurisdiction as a matter of law. American contends that TravelJungle did not meet its burden of proof under the standard of review articulated by the Texas Supreme Court. HOLDING:Affirmed. American contends that TravelJungle failed to negate facts showing that it purposefully directed its activities towards Texas, i.e., facts establishing specific jurisdiction. Allegations that a tort was committed in Texas satisfy the long-arm statute, but not due process concerns, the court found. Thus, the court stated that its analysis would focus on whether TravelJungle met its burden to negate American’s allegations that its activities satisfied the minimum contacts requirement of due process. TravelJungle’s own witness, the court stated, admitted that TravelJungle’s contacts went beyond merely looking at AA.com when he testified that someone at TravelJungle had to intentionally include AA.com in its software search script. In addition, American presented evidence that a Web site address registered to TravelJungle accessed AA.com 2,972 times in one day, that TravelJungle’s use of software to search AA.com uses valuable computer capacity and that TravelJungle’s use of AA.com’s server capacity deprives American of the ability to use that same capacity to serve its other customers. The court held that TravelJungle did not meet its burden of negating the evidence showing that it purposefully directed its data-gathering activity toward AA.com’s servers, which are located in Texas, for commercial, profit-driven purposes; thus, the court stated, the basis for jurisdiction specifically arises out of the conduct of which American complains. As to TravelJungle’s contention that it did not know where AA.com’s servers were located, the court stated that it did not believe that it should be able to avoid personal jurisdiction by purposefully engaging in activity directed towards a server located in a particular forum and then claiming ignorance of the location of that forum. By deliberately directing its activity toward AA.com, the court found that TravelJungle should have been aware of the possibility that it would be hailed into any forum where AA.com’s servers were located. Accordingly, the court held under the facts of this case that TravelJungle did not meet its burden under the appropriate standard of review to negate all bases of jurisdiction. OPINION:Livingston, J.; Livingston, Gardner and Walker, J.J.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.