MATTEL, INC. v. WWW.FISHER-PRICE.ONLINE, No. 1:2021cv09608 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (Liman, J.)

Mattel wins default judgment over unknown Chinese cyber-squatter/counterfeiter.

Personal jurisdiction established through attempt at trap-buy.

TRO had been entered against financial institution, permanent asset freeze entered against institutions in active cooperation with defendant’s operation of the website.

Text of decision in Mattel v Fisher-Price.Online: mattel

48th Restaurant Associates LLC v. Avra Hospitality LLC et al
Date: January 24, 2022
Docket Number: 1:2019cv07708

Defendant is headquartered in Minnesota. It operates restaurants and resorts.  One resort is in Connecticut. Defendant’s website is accessible in NY.

“However, as the Second Circuit has explained, “[w]hile analyzing a defendant’s conduct under the Zippo sliding scale

Forward into the past – reconnoitering the golden oldies of Internet law:

From the Wikipedia entry on Bensusan v King:

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King,[1] 126 F.3d 25, is a 1997 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case that helped define the parameters of personal jurisdiction in the Internet context,

Photographer, represented by the Liebowitz firm, sued defendant media website for unauthorized publication of plaintiff’s photo illustrating an article entitled “Rick Ross Questions Birdman’s Net Worth After Cash Money Boss Defaults On $12 Million Loan.” Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant was based in Brooklyn according to third-party website, deemed inadmissible hearsay and therefore insufficient to establish

American Girls sells dolls. Defendant, located in China, allegedly sells counterfeits of plaintiff’s dolls. Plaintiff attempted trap buys into the district, however no orders were fulfilled. Defendant alleged that it had a policy of not shipping into the U.S. Court dismisses for lack of specific jurisdiction, as mere accessibility of the website in the

TRO signed by use of ALIBABACOIN for Dubai-based ICO venture. Memo of law below.

News coverage here

[embeddoc url=””]

EDNY court exercises personal jurisdiction over defendant whose contacts with New York consist of three trap sales to plaintiff and fairly successful ‘stores’ on Amazon and eBay.

edny envirocare personal jurisdiction
var docstoc_docid=”122491974″;var docstoc_title=”edny envirocare personal jurisdiction”;var docstoc_urltitle=”edny envirocare personal jurisdiction”;