Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen

Decision Date17 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-55467,97-55467
Citation46 USPQ2d 1511,141 F.3d 1316
Parties, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2846, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3929 PANAVISION INTERNATIONAL, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis TOEPPEN; Network Solutions, Inc., a District of Columbia Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Joseph D. Murphy, Meyer, Capel, Hirschfeld, Muncy, Jahn & Aldeen, P.C., Champaign, IL, for defendants-appellants.

William E. Thomson, Jr. and Micah R. Jacobs, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP, Ivy Kagan Bierman, Charles M. Stern and Edward L. Adams, Katten Muchin & Zavis, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-03284-DDP-JRx.

Before: BRUNETTI, THOMPSON and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:

This case presents two novel issues. We are asked to apply existing rules of personal jurisdiction to conduct that occurred, in part, in "cyberspace." In addition, we are asked to interpret the Federal Trademark Dilution Act as it applies to the Internet.

Panavision accuses Dennis Toeppen of being a "cyber pirate" who steals valuable trademarks and establishes domain names on the Internet using these trademarks to sell the domain names to the rightful trademark owners.

The district court found that under the "effects doctrine," Toeppen was subject to personal jurisdiction in California. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 938 F.Supp. 616, 620 (C.D.Cal.1996). The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of Panavision, concluding that Toeppen's conduct violated the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and the California Anti-dilution statute, California Business & Professions Code § 14330. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F.Supp. 1296, 1306 (C.D.Cal.1996).

Toeppen appeals. He argues that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over him because any contact he had with California was insignificant, emanating solely from his registration of domain names on the Internet, which he did in Illinois. Toeppen further argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because his use of Panavision's trademarks on the Internet was not a commercial use and did not dilute those marks.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. The district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper and comported with the requirements of due process. Toeppen did considerably more than simply register Panavision's trademarks as his domain names on the Internet. He registered those names as part of a scheme to obtain money from Panavision. Pursuant to that scheme, he demanded $13,000 from Panavision to release the domain names to it. His acts were aimed at Panavision in California, and caused it to suffer injury there.

We also conclude Panavision was entitled to summary judgment under the federal and state dilution statutes. Toeppen made commercial use of Panavision's trademarks and his conduct diluted those marks.


The Internet is a worldwide network of computers that enables various individuals and organizations to share information. The Internet allows computer users to access millions of web sites and web pages. A web page is a computer data file that can include names, words, messages, pictures, sounds, and links to other information.

Every web page has its own web site, which is its address, similar to a telephone number or street address. Every web site on the Internet has an identifier called a "domain name." The domain name often consists of a person's name or a company's name or trademark. For example, Pepsi has a web page with a web site domain name consisting of the company name, Pepsi, and . com, the "top level" domain designation: 1

The Internet is divided into several "top level" domains: .edu for education; . org for organizations; . gov for government entities; . net for networks; and .com for "commercial" which functions as the catchall domain for Internet users.

Domain names with the .com designation must be registered on the Internet with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"). NSI registers names on a first-come, first-served basis for a $100 registration fee. NSI does not make a determination about a registrant's right to use a domain name. However, NSI does require an applicant to represent and warrant as an express condition of registering a domain name that (1) the applicant's statements are true and the applicant has the right to use the requested domain name; (2) the "use or registration of the domain name ... does not interfere with or infringe the rights of any third party in any jurisdiction with respect to trademark, service mark, trade name, company name or any other intellectual property right"; and (3) the applicant is not seeking to use the domain name for any unlawful purpose, including unfair competition.

A domain name is the simplest way of locating a web site. If a computer user does not know a domain name, she can use an Internet "search engine." To do this, the user types in a key word search, and the search will locate all of the web sites containing the key word. Such key word searches can yield hundreds of web sites. To make it easier to find their web sites, individuals and companies prefer to have a recognizable domain name.

Panavision holds registered trademarks to the names "Panavision" and "Panaflex" in connection with motion picture camera equipment. Panavision promotes its trademarks through motion picture and television credits and other media advertising.

In December 1995, Panavision attempted to register a web site on the Internet with the domain name It could not do that, however, because Toeppen had already established a web site using Panavision's trademark as his domain name. Toeppen's web page for this site displayed photographs of the City of Pana, Illinois.

On December 20, 1995, Panavision's counsel sent a letter from California to Toeppen in Illinois informing him that Panavision held a trademark in the name Panavision and telling him to stop using that trademark and the domain name Toeppen responded by mail to Panavision in California, stating he had the right to use the name on the Internet as his domain name. Toeppen stated:

If your attorney has advised you otherwise, he is trying to screw you. He wants to blaze new trails in the legal frontier at your expense. Why do you want to fund your attorney's purchase of a new boat (or whatever) when you can facilitate the acquisition of '' cheaply and simply instead?

Toeppen then offered to "settle the matter" if Panavision would pay him $13,000 in exchange for the domain name. Additionally, Toeppen stated that if Panavision agreed to his offer, he would not "acquire any other Internet addresses which are alleged by Panavision Corporation to be its property."

After Panavision refused Toeppen's demand, he registered Panavision's other trademark with NSI as the domain name Toeppen's web page for simply displays the word "Hello."

Toeppen has registered domain names for various other companies including Delta Airlines, Neiman Marcus, Eddie Bauer, Lufthansa, and over 100 other marks. Toeppen has attempted to "sell" domain names for other trademarks such as to Intermatic, Inc. for $10,000 and to American Standard, Inc. for $15,000.

Panavision filed this action against Toeppen in the District Court for the Central District of California. Panavision alleged claims for dilution of its trademark under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and under the California Anti-dilution statute, California Business and Professions Code § 14330. Panavision alleged that Toeppen was in the business of stealing trademarks, registering them as domain names on the Internet and then selling the domain names to the rightful trademark owners. The district court determined it had personal jurisdiction over Toeppen, and granted summary judgment in favor of Panavision on both its federal and state dilution claims. This appeal followed.

A. Personal Jurisdiction

A district court's determination that personal jurisdiction can properly be exercised is a question of law reviewable de novo when the underlying facts are undisputed. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. National Bank of Coops., 103 F.3d 888, 893 (9th Cir.1996). A district court's factual findings regarding jurisdiction are reviewed for clear error. Adler v. Federal Rep. of Nig., 107 F.3d 720, 723 (9th Cir.1997).

There is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we apply the law of California, the state in which the district court sits. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir.1993). California's long-arm statute permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Cal.Code Civ. P. § 410.10; Gordy v. Daily News, L.P., 95 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1996). The issue we address, therefore, is whether the requirements of due process are satisfied by the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Toeppen. Core-Vent, 11 F.3d at 1484.

Personal jurisdiction may be founded on either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.

1. General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities there are "substantial" or "continuous and systematic." Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872-73, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). The district court correctly concluded that it did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
970 cases
  • In re Wright
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Central District of California
    • October 24, 2006
    ...the mark by diminishing the capacity of the mark to identify and distinguish plaintiff's goods and services. Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998). In the district court action, Wright admitted that the COMFORT® marks were "well-known and famous throughout Ca......
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • October 30, 2009
    ...Dwyer has not presented a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. See e.g., Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998) ("We conclude that although some factors weigh in defendant's favor, he failed to present a compelling case tha......
  • Autodesk, Inc. v. Kobayashi + Zedda Architects Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 22, 2016
    ...not be haled into court based upon ‘random, fortuitous or attenuated’ contacts with the forum state." Panavision Int'l LP v. Toeppen (Panavision II ), 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Burger King , 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 ). To establish purposeful direction, a plaintiff......
  • Lindora, LLC v. Isagenix Int'l, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 1, 2016
    ...1079 (citing Dole Food , 303 F.3d at 1114 ). "No one factor is dispositive; a court must balance all seven." Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen , 141 F.3d 1316, 1323 (9th Cir.1998). The Court considers each factor in turn.a. Purposeful Interjection Even if there is sufficient interjection in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
24 books & journal articles
  • Eric Goldman, Deregulating Relevancy in Internet Trademark Law
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 54-1, 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...of thumb, that the domain name of a particular company will be the company name followed by .com."); Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 1998). But see Mueller Report, supra note 121 (calling the assumption a temporary phenomenon from 1994 to 1997 and saying "[n]......
  • Of Purposes Not Prohibited: New Federal Rule of Evidence 408(b)
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 40, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...§ 1125(d)(1)(B)(VI) (2000 & West Supp. 2006). 133. S. REP. NO. 106-140, at 2 (1999). 134. Id. at 14; Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1321-22 (9th Cir. 1998); Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2001). 135. 66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. 1999), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1 (1st ......
  • From book covers to domain names: searching for the true meaning of the Cliffs Notes temporal test for parody.
    • United States
    • The Journal of High Technology Law Vol. 7 No. 1, January 2007
    • January 1, 2007
    ...on other grounds by KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004); Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 1998) ("We reject [the] premise that a domain name is nothing more than an address. But see Doughney's Appellate Brief, supra n......
  • Personal Jurisdiction, Process, and Venue in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980)). 174. Id. at 788. 175. Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., 647 F.3d 1218, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011). 176. 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998). 177. See Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419-20 (9th Cir. 1997). 178. Toeppen, 141 F.3d at 1322. 179. See, e.g.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT