BE2 LLC v. Ivanov’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.3d 555 · 2011
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. · GTE New Media Services Inc. v. BellSouth Corp. · Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the defendant merely operates a website, even a 'highly interactive1 website, that is accessible from, but does not target, the forum state, then the defendant may not be haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'in resolving questions about personal jurisdiction involving online contacts to ensure that a defendant is not haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[tjhere is no evidence that [the defendant] targeted or exploited the market in the state that would allow a conclusion that he availed himself of the privilege of doing business in the state”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.