ISI Brands, Inc. v. KCC International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that plaintiffs agents’ purchase of infringing product had “nothing to do with Plaintiffs action for infringement since [plaintiff] cannot claim to have been confused as to with whom [they] [were] dealing” (internal quotation omitted; alterations in original)
• denying jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff could only speculate that defendant sold additional products in forum via its website that might establish jurisdiction
• finding no personal jurisdiction where Plaintiff alleged only that defendant’s sold products to a national audience through an interactive website but showed no purposeful contact with New York
• “Courts are reluctant to find personal jurisdiction unless the website specifically targets New Yorkers or is aimed at New York users”
• “Courts are reluctant to find personal jurisdiction unless the website specifically targets New Yorkers, or is aimed at New York users.”
• “[O]nly pre-litigation contacts are relevant to the jurisdictional question.” (internal quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).