Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Nwubah

Background

Adobe Systems Incorporated sued Bernard Nwubah, who did business under the names “Bright Optics” and “Bright Optics 544.” Adobe alleged that Nwubah advertised and sold counterfeit Adobe software through eBay, Bonanza, dealsCube, Toucan Deal, Amazon, and other online platforms. Adobe described eight investigative purchases between 2016 and 2019 and alleged that the products, software files, packaging, and serial numbers were counterfeit. Adobe also alleged that it sent Nwubah multiple cease-and-desist letters and follow-up communications without receiving a response.

Adobe’s complaint asserted five claims: federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution, federal copyright infringement, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Nwubah did not answer by the agreed deadline, and the Clerk entered default against him. Adobe then moved for default judgment.

Personal Jurisdiction

Before entering default judgment, the court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the case and over Nwubah personally. The court found subject-matter jurisdiction because Adobe asserted federal claims, and it found supplemental jurisdiction over the related California claim.

The court concluded that it did not have general personal jurisdiction over Nwubah because he resided in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Adobe had not alleged continuous and systematic contacts with California. The court then considered specific personal jurisdiction, which can exist when a defendant purposefully directs conduct toward the forum state, the claims arise from that conduct, and exercising jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.

For Adobe’s trademark, copyright, and California unfair-competition claims, the court applied the three-part “Calder test” for purposeful direction. The test asks whether the defendant committed an intentional act, expressly aimed it at the forum state, and caused harm the defendant knew was likely to occur there. The court found that Nwubah’s alleged online sales were intentional acts, satisfying the first part. But it found that Adobe did not satisfy the second part—express aiming at California.

The court held that the eight investigative purchases did not show that Nwubah targeted a California-specific market. It also held that Adobe’s California location, the harm Adobe allegedly suffered in California, the infringement notices sent from California, and Nwubah’s communications about the lawsuit did not establish that Nwubah himself had sufficiently targeted California. Nwubah’s failure to raise personal jurisdiction during an out-of-court conversation and his later default also did not amount to consent to personal jurisdiction.

Because Adobe failed to satisfy the express-aiming requirement, the court did not address the remaining specific-jurisdiction requirement or the factors governing whether default judgment should be entered. The court therefore did not decide the merits of Adobe’s infringement and unfair-competition claims.

Disposition

The court denied Adobe’s motion for default judgment without prejudice. The court noted that Adobe had already received opportunities to address personal jurisdiction, including supplemental briefing and limited third-party discovery. Nevertheless, it gave Adobe one final opportunity to show that Nwubah had regular sales in California or other contacts demonstrating that his California contacts were systematic and continuous rather than isolated and accidental.

Adobe was ordered to file any new motion for default judgment within 30 days. The court stated that it would dismiss the case with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction if Adobe did not file a new motion within that period or failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the order.