Hastens Sangar AB v. The Garrigan Group, LLC

Background

Hästens Sängar AB brought trademark infringement claims against The Garrigan Group, LLC and others. The Garrigan Group moved to dismiss. Hästens argued that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction—meaning authority over the defendant—because the Garrigan Group listed the allegedly infringing sofa on Chairish, an online marketplace based in California, and had sold and shipped two other items to California customers through Chairish during the previous five years.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that The Garrigan Group was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California. It reasoned that Chairish was available to anyone with internet access, so listing the sofa there did not show that The Garrigan Group deliberately directed its activities toward California. The Garrigan Group had not advertised, sold, or shipped the sofa to anyone in California, and Hästens identified no other facts showing that the company targeted California.

The court also found that the two earlier California sales did not establish purposeful direction toward California. Those sales represented less than 0.02 percent of The Garrigan Group’s total gross revenue from Chairish listings, and the purchasers’ locations appeared incidental. The court further held that, even if the sales were considered California-related activities, Hästens’s claims did not arise from or relate to them because the sales involved non-furniture items unrelated to the trademark claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not be fair or reasonable under the circumstances.

Venue

The court separately held that venue was improper in the Northern District of California. The Garrigan Group did not reside there, and no part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there. The sofa was commissioned by a Texas-based company, manufactured in North Carolina, and located in a Texas showroom. It had never been advertised, sold, or shipped in the Northern District of California. The court stated that the two earlier California sales occurred in Los Angeles, not in that district.

The court also rejected Hästens’s argument under the provision allowing venue when no other district is available. It stated that a suitable district existed and that litigation involving the same facts was already pending in the Northern District of Texas. The court said Hästens should pursue its trademark infringement claims there if it wished to do so.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss. The court stated that it was difficult to imagine how Hästens could amend its complaint to correct the problems while complying with its obligations under Rule 11, but dismissed the case with leave to amend as a matter of caution. The amended complaint was due 21 days from the date of the order, and any response from The Garrigan Group was due 21 days after the amended complaint was filed.