Under the constitutional analysis, a court has personal jurisdiction over those persons with “sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Consulting Eng’rs Corp. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Consequently, the statutory inquiry necessarily merges with the constitutional inquiry, and the two inquiries essentially become one.” ESAB Group, Inc. The Supreme Court of South Carolina has interpreted South Carolina’s long-arm statute to extend to the constitutional limits imposed by federal due process. To assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the exercise of jurisdiction must be authorized by South Carolina’s long-arm statute and must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court, moreover, “must draw all reasonable inferences arising from the proof, and resolve all factual disputes, in the plaintiff’s favor.” Mylan Labs, 2 F.3d at 60. The court may consider evidence outside of the pleadings, such as affidavits and other evidentiary materials, in ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.
“When a court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant is contested, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of a ground for exercising such jurisdiction.” ESAB Group, Inc. Personal Jurisdiction Rural King alleges that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. 15.) This matter is ripe for consideration. 14.) Rural King filed a reply on September 21, 2017. 11.) Tool Shed responded in opposition on September 14, 2017. 8.) Rural King filed the instant motion on August 29, 2017. 8.) On August 15, 2017, Tool Shed filed the amended complaint against Rural King. 8.) In addition, Tool Shed alleges to have received telephone calls and emails from Rural King’s employees and customers regarding warranties and replacement parts for infringing products.
8.) In connection with these activities, Tool Shed alleges that Rural King sold approximately $2,000.00 worth of infringing products to South Carolina addresses through their website. 8.) Specifically, Tool Shed alleges that these purposefully directed activities include: marketing, advertising, product sales, tortious acts of infringement, unfair competition, and the distribution of goods in South Carolina. 8.) Further, Tool Shed alleges that Rural King has purposefully directed 1 activities to South Carolina. d/b/a Rural King Supply (“Rural King”), a company that operates a chain of more than 100 stores in twelve states, markets products for sale that infringe upon Tool Shed’s service mark and trademark on Rural King’s website.
8.) In the amended complaint, Tool Shed asserts that Defendant Mattoon Rural King Supply, Inc.
Rural king tool shed lights professional#
8.) Tool Shed is a company that has allegedly provided retail store services for professional tools under the service mark “THE TOOL SHED” since 1979 and sold various tools under the trademark “THE TOOL SHED” since 1998. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of a dispute relating to a service mark and trademark registered to the Plaintiff, The Tool Shed, Inc. For the reasons stated below, the court denies Defendant’s motion. 6:17-1660-HMH OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.
Mattoon Rural King Supply, Inc., d/b/a Rural King Supply, Defendant. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION The Tool Shed, Inc., Plaintiff, vs.
0 kommentar(er)
