Licciardello v. Lovelady

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that allegation that defendant’s website contained an infringing and deceptive use of plaintiff’s trademark was a tortious act “within this state”
• holding that a nonresident’s intentional use of a resident’s trademark was “expressly aimed at a specific individual in the forum whose effects were suffered in the forum,” satisfying the minimum contacts prong of the federal standard
• holding that a nonresident’s intentional use of a resident’s trademark was “expressly aimed at a specific individual in the forum whose effects were suffered in the forum,” satisfying the minimum contacts prong of the federal standard
• holding that the owners of a trademark infringing website created in Tennessee were subject to the Florida long-arm statute because “in this case the alleged infringement clearly also occurred in Florida by virtue of the website’s accessibility in Florida”
• noting that the Supreme Court “emphasized that states have a special interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who commit intentional torts causing injury to their residents”
• finding that “although the website was created in Tennessee, the Florida long-arm statute is satisfied if the alleged trademark infringement on the website caused injury in Florida”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).