This document discusses principles of jurisdiction related to online activities. It examines jurisdiction based on three bases: jurisdiction to prescribe, jurisdiction to adjudicate, and jurisdiction to enforce. For jurisdiction to adjudicate, which determines a court's authority to subject parties to its judicial process, the document analyzes approaches that have emerged from case law. It categorizes cases into five groups based on the connection between the forum state and the online activity. The lowest level of connection is mere accessibility of a website in the forum state, as seen in an Australian case. Higher levels require potential contacts, actual contacts or effects, or targeting a specific victim in the forum state. The document provides examples from cases in various jurisdictions to illustrate the different categories of jurisdictional control
This document discusses principles of jurisdiction related to online activities. It examines jurisdiction based on three bases: jurisdiction to prescribe, jurisdiction to adjudicate, and jurisdiction to enforce. For jurisdiction to adjudicate, which determines a court's authority to subject parties to its judicial process, the document analyzes approaches that have emerged from case law. It categorizes cases into five groups based on the connection between the forum state and the online activity. The lowest level of connection is mere accessibility of a website in the forum state, as seen in an Australian case. Higher levels require potential contacts, actual contacts or effects, or targeting a specific victim in the forum state. The document provides examples from cases in various jurisdictions to illustrate the different categories of jurisdictional control
This document discusses principles of jurisdiction related to online activities. It examines jurisdiction based on three bases: jurisdiction to prescribe, jurisdiction to adjudicate, and jurisdiction to enforce. For jurisdiction to adjudicate, which determines a court's authority to subject parties to its judicial process, the document analyzes approaches that have emerged from case law. It categorizes cases into five groups based on the connection between the forum state and the online activity. The lowest level of connection is mere accessibility of a website in the forum state, as seen in an Australian case. Higher levels require potential contacts, actual contacts or effects, or targeting a specific victim in the forum state. The document provides examples from cases in various jurisdictions to illustrate the different categories of jurisdictional control
UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW CYBER LAW A PROJECT ON Appropriate For! i" C#$er %ri&'i(tio")
SUBMITTED TO Mr. Amandeep Singh Assistant Prof. (Law) SUBMITTED BY sman !hani "han #.A.LL.# ($ons.) % th Semester Ro&& No. '() ' TABLE OF CONTENTS N!$er *arti(+ar& *a,e N!$er -. *ntrod+,tion. .. .. Persona& J+risdi,tion .. /. /0A1 As,ertainment of Corre,t -or+m. -i/e Categories
/. 2. 20A1 20B1 Other Parameters !eographi,a& *ndi,ation Te,hno&og0 -or+m Se&e,tion C&a+se -3. 4. Con,&+sion -5. 6. #i1&iograph0 -5. I"tro'(tio" 2 3ith the ad/ent of the *nternet4 tho+sands of traditiona& 1ri,5 and mortar stores are gra/itating to ,01erspa,e. This pro&ifi, growth is f+e&ed 10 the re&ati/e ease of transmitting information wor&dwide instantaneo+s&0. At the same time4 ,on,erns o/er the &ega& ris5s of se&&ing prod+,ts and pro/iding ser/i,es on&ine are emerging. The +ni6+e ,ha&&enge presented 10 the *nternet is that in order to &imit 1+sinesses7 e8pos+re to &ega& ris5s4 it wo+&d not s+ffi,e for them to simp&0 ,omp&0 with m+ni,ipa& &aws. As we1 sites ,an 1e assessed wor&d wide4 the prospe,t that a we1 site owner ma0 1e dragged into a foreign ,o+rtroom tho+sands of mi&es awa0 is more than 9+st fan,if+& ,on9e,t+re. -or e&e,troni, ,ommer,e to e/o&/e profita1&0 and effi,ient&04 1+sinesses and ,ons+mers sho+&d 1e aware of the regimes that reg+&ate their /irt+a& intera,tion. As the *nternet resides in a /irt+a& wor&d4 its operation pa0s no heed to geographi,a& 1o+ndaries. The ,onse6+en,e is s+,h that in the e/ent of &ega& disp+tes4 parties to an *nternet transa,tion are fa,ed with o/er&apping and often ,ontradi,tor0 ,&aims that different nationa& &aws are app&i,a1&e and different ,o+rts ha/e 9+risdi,tion o/er their a,ti/ities. *nternet 9+risdi,tion ,an 1e e8amined on three 1ases: 9+risdi,tion to pres,ri1e4 9+risdi,tion to ad9+di,ate and 9+risdi,tion to enfor,e. J+risdi,tion to pres,ri1e refers to a State7s a+thorit0 to ma5e s+1stanti/e &aw app&i,a1&e to different persons and ,ir,+mstan,es. J+risdi,tion to ad9+di,ate is defined as the ,o+rt7s entit&ement to s+19e,t persons or things to the 9+di,ia& pro,ess. J+risdi,tion to enfor,e dea&s with a State7s a+thorit0 to ,ompe& ,omp&ian,e with its &aws4 whether thro+gh 9+di,ia& or administrati/e means. This paper wo+&d see5 to e8amine in parti,+&ar the prin,ip&es that ha/e emerged from ,ase &aw re&ating to ,o+rt7s 9+risdi,tion to ad9+di,ate o/er disp+tes arising from a,ti/ities in ,01erspa,e. A ,omparati/e st+d0 of the 9+di,ia& approa,hes in the Commonwea&th wi&& 1e attempted a&tho+gh e8tensi/e referen,e wi&& 1e made to /ario+s Ameri,an 9+dgments sin,e the nited States is at the forefront of *nternet te,hno&og0 and its ,o+rts ha/e on n+mero+s o,,asions dea&t with 9+risdi,tiona& iss+es in ,01erspa,e. These pre,edents ha/e and wi&& ,ontin+e to inf&+en,e Canadian ,o+rts when the0 are sei;ed with simi&ar iss+es. #efore &a+n,hing into a dis,+ssion on 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tiona& approa,hes o/er ,01er. a,ti/ities4 it wo+&d 1e pertinent to re/iew the traditiona& 1ases on whi,h ,o+rts ha/e genera&&0 asserted their ,ompeten,e o/er the persons. < *er&o"a+ %ri&'i(tio" Personal Jurisdiction in Canada *n the semina& ,ase of Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye 1 4 the S+preme Co+rt of Canada &aid down the &itm+s test for determining whether assertion of 9+risdi,tion o/er a defendant is appropriate. There has to 1e a =rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion> 1etween the for+m state and the s+19e,t matter of the &itigation for the ,o+rt to ass+me 9+risdi,tion. ?e/e&oping +pon Morg+ard4 the S+preme Co+rt in Hunt v T & N plc 2 4 affirmed that the = rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion> test was +nderpinned 10 the Canadian Constit+tion and ,a+tioned ,o+rts from o/er. rea,hing 10 propo+nding that the determination of the appropriate for+m m+st = +&timate&0 1e g+ided 10 the re6+irements of order and fairness4 not a me,hani,a& ,o+nting of ,onta,ts or ,onne,tions. 3 Personal Jurisdiction under US Law *n the nited States4 ,o+rts ha/e adopted a 9+risdi,tiona& test that resem1&es o+r Morguard approa,h. As esta1&ished in Internatonal S!oe v "as!ngton @ 4 the prin,ip&e was that the foreign defendant m+st ha/e ,ertain =minim+m ,onta,ts> with the state s+,h that the maintenan,e of the s+it does not offend =traditiona& notions of fair p&a0 and s+1stantia& 9+sti,e.> ( = Minim+m ,onta,ts> are present when the defendant has p+rposef+&&0 a/ai&ed itse&f of the pri/i&ege of doing 1+siness within the for+m state4 the re&e/ant ,a+se of a,tion arises from the defendant7s a,ti/ities within the for+m state and the e8er,ise of 9+risdi,tion is fair and reasona1&e. A A&(ertai"!e"t o7 t8e (orre(t 7or! Five Categories of Jurisdictional Control ' B'CC)D < S.C.R. ')EE at '')F. 2 B'CC<D @ S.C.R. 2FC. < I#d. at <2A. @ <2A .S. <') ('C@(). ( I#d. at <'A. A $urger %ng v &ud'e(c'4 @E' .S. @A2 ('CF@) at @EA. @ J+di,ia& approa,hes of asserting 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro& in ,01erspa,e ha/e not 1een homogeno+s and ,ases &ie on a ,ontin++m of /ar0ing ne8+s 1etween the for+m state and the ,01er. a,t in 6+estion. * wo+&d arg+e that the ,ases ,o+&d 1e ,ategori;ed into fi/e different gro+ps. Cases fa&&ing in Categor0 ' i&&+strate that the Gmere a,,essi1i&it07 of the we1site in the for+m state wo+&d s+ffi,e to ,onfer 9+risdi,tiona& rights on the ,o+rt. E8amp&es that wo+&d 1e dis,+ssed in,&+de the A+stra&ian de,ision of )utnc* v Do( +ones , and the Ameri,an ,ase of Inset. - *n Categor0 2 ,ases4 ,o+rts see5 some sort of Gpotentia& ,onta,ts7 1etween the ,01er. a,tor and the for+m state4 1e0ond the mere a,,essi1i&it0 of the we1 site in the 9+risdi,tion. The .ppo C de,ision was pi/ota& to this new de/e&opment and the ,o+rt propo+nded the Gs&iding intera,ti/it07 test whi,h has 1een adopted 10 o+r Canadian ,o+rt in $rantec!. ') . As for ,ases in Categor0 <4 the ,01er.a,tor has to ma5e Ga,t+a& ,onta,ts7 with the for+m state. A,t+a& ,onta,ts wo+&d in,&+de ,01er.a,ts with effe,ts on the re6+isite 9+risdi,tion as e8emp&ified in the Ameri,an de,ision of /anavson '' or a,t+a& on&ine sa&es with for+m state as i&&+strated in the Canadian ,ase of 0ast!aven '2 . -a&&ing in Categor0 @ are the nited States ,ase of Mllennum Musc '< and the nited "ingdom de,ision of 11-22 3lo(ers '@ whi,h permit 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tiona& assertions on the 1ases en+merated in either Categor0 < or Categor0 (. -ina&&04 the on&0 ,ase to date in Categor0 ( is the Ameri,an de,ision of Calla(ay '( in whi,h the ,01er. a,tor has to target the /i,tim spe,ifi,a&&0 in the for+m state. Cate,or# -9 Mere A((e&&i$i+it# )utnc* v Do( +ones *n )utnc* 'A 4 the defendant ?ow Jones H Co *n, was the p+1&isher of #arrons4 Ameri,an maga;ine whi&e the p&aintiff4 !+tni,5 was an A+stra&ian entreprene+r. The p&aintiff a&&eged that defamator0 remar5s a1o+t him were p+1&ished in the maga;ine and the arti,&e was a&so made a/ai&a1&e on the defendantIs we1site whi,h was hosted in New Jerse0. The we1 site was s+1s,ription 1ased with se/era& h+ndred s+1s,ri1ers from Ji,toria4 A+stra&ia. The 9+risdi,tiona& E B2))'D JSC <)(4 Le8is #C2))')@CF) on&ine: Le8is (A+stra&ia) Bhereinafter )utnc*D. F Inset Systems4 Inc. v Instructon Set4 Inc4 C<E -.S+pp. 'A' ('CCA) Bhereinafter InsetD. C .ppo Manu5acturng 6o v. .ppo Dot 6om4 Inc4 C(2 -.S+pp. '''C ('CCE) Bhereinafter .ppoD. ') #rainte,h / "osti+54 ('CCC) C 3.3.R. '<< Bhereinafter $rantec!D. '' /anavson Internatonal4 L./. v. Toeppen4 171 3.3d 1318 9hereinafter /anavson:. '2 0ast!aven Ltd. v. Nutrsystem.com Inc.4 (2))') (( O.R. (<d) <<@ 9hereinafter 0ast!aven:. '< Mllennum 0nters.4 Inc. v. Mllennum Musc4 << -.S+pp. 2d C)E ('CCC) Bhereinafter Mllennum Musc:. '@ 11-22 3lo(ers Incorporated v /!onenames Lmted4 Le8is B2))'D E3CA Ci/ E2' on&ine: Le8is (nited "ingdom) Bhereinafter 11-22 3lo(ersD. '( 6alla(ay )ol5 6orp. v. &oyal 6anadan )ol5 ;ss<n4 '2( -. S+pp. 2d ''C@K 2))) .S. ?ist. Le8is 'C)<2 on&ine: Le8is (nited States) Bhereinafter 6alla(ayD. 'A Supra note (. ( iss+e t+rned on whether the defamator0 arti,&e 1eing a/ai&a1&e on the *nternet ,o+&d 1e ,onsidered p+1&ished in Ji,toria4 A+stra&ia. The S+preme Co+rt of Ji,toria ,on,&+ded that there was p+1&i,ation in Ji,toria. Sin,e ?ow Jones ,ontro&&ed a,,ess to its we1 materia&s 10 the imposition of ,harges and passwords4 it =intended that on&0 those s+1s,ri1ers in /ario+s states of A+stra&ia who met their re6+irements> 'E to ha/e a,,ess to those materia&s. Admitted&04 the same o+t,ome wo+&d ha/e 1een rea,hed if the Ga,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 test 1orne o+t 10 those ,ases in Categor0 < were +sed. #0 a,,epting s+1s,riptions from Ji,toria4 A+stra&ia and pro/iding residents in that state with the ne,essar0 on&ine passwords4 the defendant was effe,ti/e&0 ,on,&+ding a,t+a& on&ine sa&es with the for+m state. 3hat is howe/er4 signifi,ant is that the ,o+rt de,ided the ,ase =on the 1asis that p+1&i,ation ta5es p&a,e on down&oading.> 'F As reasoned 10 the ,o+rt4 =the point simp&0 is that if 0o+ do p+1&ish a &i1e& 9+sti,ia1&e in another ,o+ntr0 with its own &awsL then 0o+ ma0 1e &ia1&e to pa0 damages for ind+&ging that freedom.> 'C 3hi&e this reasoning is ,&ear&0 o1iter4 ta5en to its e8treme ,on,&+sion wo+&d mean that e/er0 p+1&i,ation on the *nternet that ,o+&d 1e a,,essed in Ji,toria4 A+stra&ia4 wo+&d ,onfer 9+risdi,tiona& rights on the state ,o+rt4 regard&ess of whether the parties had an0 ,onne,tions whatsoe/er with the for+m state in disp+te. 'E I#d . 'F I#d. 'C I#d. A Inset Systems4 Inc. v Instructon Set4 Inc ?e,iding a&ong the same &ines was the Ameri,an de,ision of *nset 22 . The p&aintiff4 *nset S0stems4 was a software ,ompan0 1ased in Conne,ti,+t whi&e the defendant4 *nstr+,tion Set was a te,hno&og0 firm 1ased in Massa,h+setts. The s+it ens+red after *nset attempted to register its federa& trademar5 *NSET as a domain name and &earned that *nstr+,tion had a&read0 o1tained inset.,om as a domain name. *nset hen,e 1ro+ght an a,tion against *nstr+,tion in the Conne,ti,+t ?istri,t Co+rt for trademar5 infringement on the 1asis that *nstr+,tion ad/ertised in Conne,ti,+t o/er the *nternet +sing the domain name inset.,om. *nstr+,tion howe/er as5ed the ,o+rt to de,&ine 9+risdi,tion on the gro+nds that it does not ,ond+,t an0 1+siness or ha/e an0 emp&o0ees in Conne,ti,+t. The Co+rt reasoned that =minim+m ,onta,ts> with the for+m state were satisfied as *nstr+,tion had p+rposef+&&0 a/ai&ed itse&f of the pri/i&ege of ,ond+,ting a,ti/ities within Conne,ti,+t 10 esta1&ishing a we1site on the *nternet. The ,o+rt per,ei/ed the we1site as a5in to an ad/ertisement that is =a/ai&a1&e ,ontin+o+s&0 to an0 *nternet +ser>. 21 As an ad/ertisement on the *nternet ,an rea,h as man0 as ')4))) *nternet +sers within Conne,ti,+t a&one4 the ,o+rt ,on,&+ded that *nstr+,tion had = p+rposef+&&0 dire,ted > its ad/ertising a,ti/ities towards Conne,ti,+t on a ,ontin+ing 1asis and = ,o+&d reasona1&0 anti,ipate the possi1i&it0 of 1eing ha+&ed into ,o+rt there. > 22 The Co+rt howe/er did a,5now&edge that the ,on,ept of =fair p&a0 and s+1stantia& 9+sti,e> ma0 defeat the reasona1&eness of 9+risdi,tion e/en if the defendant has the re6+isite minim+m ,onta,ts with the for+m. $owe/er on the fa,ts4 the ,o+rt he&d that this was satisfied as the distan,e 1etween Conne,ti,+t and Massa,h+setts was minima&. The reasoning of the Co+rt is pro1&emati, and sho+&d gi/e pa+se to an0 we1 site operator. #0 ana&ogi;ing a we1site to a ,ontin+o+s ad/ertisement4 the Co+rt has effe,ti/e&0 hand,+ffed an0 defendant who ad/ertises /ia the *nternet to the 9+risdi,tion in e/er0 for+m from whi,h *nternet a,,ess is a/ai&a1&e. -+rthermore4 the Co+rt did not e8amine *nstr+,tion7s a,t+a& a,ti/it0 in ,01erspa,e. 3hi&e admitted&04 the we1site ,o+&d rea,h +p to the ')4))) +sers in Conne,ti,+t4 there were no e/iden,e to show how man0 Conne,ti,+t residents did in fa,t a,,essed the we1site. No e/iden,e was a&so offered to pro/e that there were a,ti/e so&i,itation of ,+stomers on the *nternet or that sa&e of goods and ser/i,es were 1eing ,on,&+ded thro+gh its we1site. The mere +p&oading of a we1site onto the *nternet was s+ffi,ient for the ,o+rt to 9+stif0 9+risdi,tion. 3hi&e the Co+rt entered a ,a/eat of =fair p&a0> to mitigate the s,ope of =minim+m ,onta,ts>4 this &egitimate safeg+ard was deemed satisfied 10 the minima& distan,e 2) Supra note A. 2' Supra note A at 'A(. 22 I#d. E 1etween the two disp+ted 9+risdi,tions. The ,on,ern with distan,e 1etween the for+m state and the defendant7s &o,ation wo+&d 1e of &itt&e assistan,e to ins+&ate 1ordering states in an internationa& ,onte8t. *n parti,+&ar4 Canada wo+&d sti&& 1e s+19e,ted to a m+&tit+de of 9+risdi,tions within the nited States. 3ith this *nset pre,edent esta1&ished4 se/era& s+1se6+ent ,ases soon fo&&owed its approa,h in en&arging 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro& in ,01erspa,e. A prime e8amp&e wo+&d 1e the ,ase of Marit;4 *n, /. C01er!o&d 23 . Mart'4 Inc v. 6y#ergold C01er!o&d4 a ,orporation &o,ated in Ca&ifornia operated an *nternet site that a&&owed +sers to sign onto an e.mai&ing &ist to re,ei/e we1 ad/ertisements. #efore the e.mai& ser/i,e 1e,ame operationa&4 Marit;4 a Misso+ri firm whi,h pro/ided an e.mai& ser/i,e +nder its trademar5 !o&dmai&4 fi&ed s+it in Misso+ri ,&aiming trademar5 infringement. -o&&owing the &ega& reasoning in *nset4 the Co+rt here arti,+&ated that thro+gh its we1site4 C01er!o&d has =,ons,io+s&0 de,ided to transmit ad/ertising information to a&& *nternet +sers4 5nowing that s+,h information wi&& 1e transmitted g&o1a&&0.> 27 The ,o+rt a&so fo+nd that sin,e C01er!o&d transmitted information into Misso+ri /ia its we1site appro8imate&0 '<' times4 the defendant had p+rposef+&&0 a/ai&ed itse&f to the pri/i&eges of ,ond+,ting a,ti/ities in Misso+ri. 2= *n part4 the *nset de,ision was ta5en a step f+rther as pro8imit0 1etween the for+m state and the defendant7s &o,ation was no &onger re6+ired. *t wo+&d appear that 10 posting information on its we1site per se4 C01er!o&d had the re6+isite =intent is to rea,h a&& *nternet +sers4 regard&ess of geographi, &o,ation.> 28 The rationa&e here appears to 1e that ,ommer,ia& we1. pages 10 its /er0 nat+re so&i,it 1+siness a&& o/er the wor&d4 in,&+ding the disp+ted for+m4 and hen,e 9+stifies the finding of proper persona& 9+risdi,tion. 3hi&e *nset ga/e 1irth to a &ine of ,ases endorsing a 1roader 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tiona& rea,h o/er the *nternet4 ,on,+rrent&04 there grew a /o&+me of ,ases whi,h 1+,5ed this trend. The genesis of this ,o+nter/ai&ing for,e wo+&d pro1a1&0 1e #ens+san. 2, Cate,or# .9 *ote"tia+ Co"ta(t& $e#o"' A((e&&i$i+it# $ensusan &estaurant 6orporaton v. %ng 2< C@E -.S+pp '<2F ('CCA). 2@ Supra note 'E at '<<<. 2( *1id. 2A I#d. 2E $ensusan &estaurant 6orporaton v. %ng4 C<E -.S+pp. 2C( ('CCA) Bhereinafter $ensusanD.
F #ens+san4 a New Mor5 Corporation4 was the owner of the =The #&+e Note> 9a;; ,&+1 in New Mor5 Cit0 and owned the federa& trademar5 in its name. "ing4 a Misso+ri resident4 set +p a we1 site ,a&&ed =The #&+e Note> to ad/ertise his Misso+ri 9a;; ,&+1. #ens+san &ater 1ro+ght s+it against "ing for trademar5 infringement. n&i5e *nset4 the ,o+rt here he&d that =the mere fa,t that a person ,an gain information on the a&&eged&0 infringing prod+,t is not the e6+i/a&ent of a person ad/ertising4 or otherwise ma5ing an effort to target its prod+,t in New Mor5>. 2F As ana&0;ed 10 the ,o+rt4 to o1tain ti,5ets to the ,&+14 a person wo+&d ha/e to ,a&& the Misso+ri n+m1er &isted on the we1site and pi,5 +p the ti,5ets in Misso+ri. The ,o+rt ana&ogi;ed the operation of a we1site to the p&a,ement of a prod+,t into the =stream of ,ommer,e> whi,h ma0 1e fe&t wor&dwide4 =1+t witho+t more4 it is not an a,t p+rposef+&&0 dire,ted toward the for+m state.> 2C The ,o+rt in $ensusan in sharp ,ontrast with Inset emphasi;ed that "ing7s we1site whi&e ,apa1&e of 1eing assessed wor&d wide4 in,&+ding New Mor54 did not ,onstit+te s+ffi,ient presen,e in that state. As reasoned 10 the ,o+rt4 =mere foresee.a1i&it0 of an in.state ,onse6+en,e and a fai&+re to a/ert that ,onse6+en,e is not s+ffi,ient to esta1&ish persona& 9+risdi,tion.> <) Apparent&04 the ,o+rt foresaw the internationa& imp&i,ations of a ,ontrar0 de,ision and wanted to pre.empt g&o1a& 9+risdi,tion o/er o/erseas we1site operators in e/er0 disp+te in/o&/ing New Mor5 residents. The $ensusan de,ision did not endea/or to re,on,i&e the Inset ,hain of ,ases4 1+t instead &aid the fo+ndation for a series of ,ases that propo+nds a different &ega& theor0 on 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tion in ,01erspa,e. Man0 s+1se6+ent ,o+rts whi&e agreeing with Inset that =additiona& a,ti/it0> is needed to find persona& 9+risdi,tion4 had nonethe&ess 1een /ag+e on what this en,ompassed. An attempt was e/ent+a&&0 made 10 the Penns0&/ania ?istri,t ,o+rt in Nppo <' to s0nthesi;e the ear&0 ,ases4 and its ana&0ti,a& framewor5 hen,eforth 1e,ame the ne8t 1est thing in ,01er.9+risdi,tion. N ppo Manu5acturng 6o v. .ppo Dot 6om4 Inc The p&aintiff4 Nippo Man+fa,t+ring was the man+fa,t+rer of the Nippo &ighters in Penns0&/ania and he&d a trademar5 in its name. The defendant4 1ased in Ca&ifornia4 operated an *nternet news ser/i,e and +sed ;ippo.,om as the domain name. A&tho+gh the defendant had no ph0si,a& presen,e in Penns0&/ania4 it had a1o+t <))) s+1s,ri1ers who were Penns0&/ania residents and a&so had agreements with m+&tip&e *nternet ser/i,e pro/iders in Penns0&/ania. The p&aintiff ,ommen,ed pro,eedings in Penns0&/ania ,&aiming trademar5 infringement whi&e the defendant mo/ed for dismissa&4 arg+ing that the state of Penns0&/ania &a,5ed persona& 9+risdi,tion o/er the 2F Supra note 2< at <)'. 2C I#d. <) I#d. <' Supra note E. C defendant. The Penns0&/ania ,o+rt de/e&oped a Gs&iding s,a&e7 of persona& 9+risdi,tion 1ased on the on&ine intera,ti/it0 of the we1sites. nder this s&iding ,ontin++m test4 =the &i5e&ihood that persona& 9+risdi,tion ,an 1e ,onstit+tiona&&0 e8er,ised is dire,t&0 proportionate to the nat+re and 6+a&it0 of ,ommer,ia& a,ti/it0 that an entit0 ,ond+,ts o/er the *nternet.> <2 =At one end of the spe,tr+m are sit+ations where a defendant ,&ear&0 does 1+siness o/er the *nternet. *f the defendant enters into ,ontra,ts with residents of a foreign 9+risdi,tion that in/o&/e the 5nowing and repeated transmission of ,omp+ter fi&es o/er the *nternet4 persona& 9+risdi,tion is proper. At the opposite end are sit+ations where a defendant has simp&0 posted information on an *nternet 3e1 site whi,h is a,,essi1&e to +sers in foreign 9+risdi,tions. A passi/e 3e1 site that does &itt&e more than ma5e information a/ai&a1&e to those who are interested in it is not gro+nds for the e8er,ise of persona& 9+risdi,tion. The midd&e gro+nd is o,,+pied 10 intera,ti/e 3e1 sites where a +ser ,an e8,hange information with the host ,omp+ter. *n these ,ases4 the e8er,ise of 9+risdi,tion is determined 10 e8amining the &e/e& of intera,ti/it0 and ,ommer,ia& nat+re of the e8,hange of information that o,,+rs on the 3e1 site. > << #0 &oo5ing at the &e/e& of ,ommer,ia& a,ti/ities +nderta5en 10 the we1site in ,01erspa,e4 it wo+&d appear that whi&e mere ad/ertisements posted on the *nternet wo+&d no &onger s+ffi,e to &egitimi;e 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tion o/er the person4 an engagement in e&e,troni, ,ommer,e wo+&d. As &ong as the we1 site has the ,apa,it0 to ,ond+,t on&ine sa&es4 it wo+&d appear that +nder .ppo it is immateria& whether there are a,t+a& on&ine sa&es ,on,&+ded with the for+m state in 6+estion. The ,onstr+,tion of a 9+risdi,tiona& framewor5 on the 1asis of we1site intera,ti/it0 as propo+nded 10 the .ppo ,o+rt soon fo+nd fa/or with s+1se6+ent ,o+rts. This paradigm shift ,o+&d 1e attri1+ted to the growing 9+di,ia& awareness that d+e to the /ast and ,omp&e8 nat+re of ,01erspa,e4 it wo+&d 1e +nreasona1&e and +nrea&isti, to ma5e we1masters amena1&e to the 9+risdi,tion of an0 for+m state where their we1sites ,o+&d 1e assessed4 regard&ess of the nat+re of their ,ontents. 3ith the widespread adoption of the .ppo test within the nited States4 it is not s+rprising that the Canadian ,o+rts soon 9+mped on the 1andwagon and integrated the Gs&iding s,a&e7 test within o+r ,onstit+tiona& fo&ds. $rantec! v %ostu* <@ was the first of the *nternet 9+risdi,tiona& ,ases that ,onfronted o+r ,o+rts. $rantec! v %ostu* The defendant4 "osti+5 had a&&eged&0 +sed the *nternet to transmit and p+1&ish defamator0 messages a1o+t #rainte,h4 the p&aintiff4 a #ritish Co&+m1ia 1ased ,ompan0. #rainte,h s+1se6+ent&0 s+ed and won in a Te8as ,o+rt and so+ght to enfor,e the 9+dgment it in #ritish <2 I#d at ''2@. << I#d. <@ Supra note F. ') Co&+m1ia. The #ritish Co&+m1ia Co+rt of Appea& in ana&0;ing the =rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion> 1etween the for+m state Te8as and the a&&eged in9+r0 adopted the .ppo approa,h of ,ategori;ing the we1site on a s&iding s,a&e of *nternet intera,ti/it0. The ,o+rt ,on,&+ded that the postings were passi/e in nat+re and that the =mere possi1i&it0 that someone in that 9+risdi,tion might ha/e rea,hed o+t to ,01erspa,e to 1ring the defamator0 materia& to a s,reen in Te8as> <( wo+&d not satisf0 the ,onstit+tiona& test &aid down in Morguard. #rainte,h is a &andmar5 de,ision as the ,o+rt not on&0 em1ra,ed the .ppo approa,h within the Canadian ,onte8t the 9+di,iar0 had a&so imp&i,it&0 e6+ated the Ameri,an =minim+m ,onta,ts> do,trine with o+r Morguard =rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion> test. As arti,+&ated 10 !o&die J.A.4 =the mere transitor04 passi/e presen,e in ,01erspa,e of the a&&eged defamator0 materia& L does not ,onstit+te a rea& and s+1stantia& presen,e. On the Ameri,an a+thorities this is an ins+ffi,ient 1asis for the e8er,ise of an n personam 9+risdi,tion o/er a non.resident. > <A This approa,h sho+&d 1e &a+ded as regard&ess of whether the 9+risdi,tiona& test is ,o+,hed in terms of = minim+m ,onta,ts > or = rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion >4 the f+ndamenta& prin,ip&e of 9+risdi,tiona& reasona1&eness remains +n,hanged. A ,onne,tion made 1etween the two tests wo+&d fa,i&itate the import and app&i,ation of Ameri,an *nternet ,ase &aw in Canada. This is of m+,h pra,ti,a& /a&+e to Canada as the nited States 1eing at the forefront of *nternet te,hno&og04 ha/e a&read0 ,onfronted se/era& 9+risdi,tiona& iss+es that wo+&d ,ome Canada7s wa0 and their 9+di,ia& ana&0ti,a& framewor5s wo+&d e6+ip o+r ,o+rts with the too&s to tra/erse the ,01er.9+risdi,tiona& 6+agmires. Rising Pro1&ems with the .ppo Test 3hi&e the .ppo test was form+&ated to pro/ide a &e/e& of &ega& ,ertaint0 in *nternet 9+risdi,tion4 ma9orit0 of the we1sites on ,01erspa,e stradd&e the =midd&e gro+p> in terms of +ser intera,ti/it0 and ,annot 1e ,&assified as either passi/e or a,ti/e. -or these we1sites fa&&ing in the gra0 ;one4 the0 are 1a,5 at s6+are one. Moreo/er4 the .ppo approa,h is a dampener on the de/e&opment of e&e,troni, ,ommer,e as it dis,o+rages the adoption of intera,ti/e we1sites. 3ith its s&iding ,ontin++m test of aggregating the assertion of persona& 9+risdi,tion to the =nat+re and 6+a&it0 of ,ommer,ia& a,ti/it0 that an entit0 ,ond+,ts o/er the *nternet>4 <E prospe,ti/e we1site operators wo+&d &ogi,a&&0 &imit their home pages to passi/e sites for fear of 1eing ha&ed into a far f&+ng ,o+rt to fa,e s+it. This ,onstraint r+ns ,ontrar0 to the g&o1a& mo/ement towards the em1ra,e of e. ,ommer,e. This dissatisfa,tion with the .ppo framewor5 &ed ,o+rts to see5 a,t+a& ,onta,ts 1etween with the ,01er.a,tor and the for+m states 1efore asserting 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro&. 3hi&e <( I#d. at'@C. <A I#d. <E Supra note 2A. '' some ,o+rts mo/ed toward an effe,t. 1ased ana&0sis4 others refined the .ppo Gs&iding s,a&e7 framewor5 and sear,hed for a,t+a& on&ine sa&es 1etween the re6+isite for+m and the ,01er.a,tor. Cate,or# /9 A(ta+ Co"ta(t& :it8 For! State a. E77e(t&; Ba&e' A"a+#&i& 6alder v. +ones The S+preme Co+rt of Ameri,a first esta1&ished the =effe,ts test> in 6alder v +ones. <F This do,trine states that persona& 9+risdi,tion ma0 1e predi,ated +pon =(') intentiona& a,tions (2) e8press&0 aimed at the for+m state (<) ,a+sing harm4 the 1r+nt of whi,h is s+ffered4 and whi,h the defendant 5nows is &i5e&0 to 1e s+ffered4 in the for+m state.> The effe,ts test was app&ied within an *nternet setting in the Ameri,an de,ision of /anavson. <C /anavson Internatonal4 L./. v. Toeppen The defendant4 Toeppen4 engaged in s,heme to register Pana/ision7s trademar5s as a domain name for the p+rpose of e8torting mone0 for its re&ease. Pana/ision s+ed Toeppen in Ca&ifornia4 1+t the &atter mo/ed for dismissa&4 a&&eging that the for+m state did not ha/e proper persona& 9+risdi,tion o/er his person. The Ca&ifornian ,o+rt in de,iding whether =minim+m ,onta,ts> was a/ai&a1&e in,orporated the effe,ts do,trine within the first prong re6+irement of p+rposef+& a/ai&ment. @) *t was he&d that the =app&i,ation of the p+rposef+& a/ai&ment prong differs depending on whether the +nder&0ing ,&aim is a tort or ,ontra,t ,&aim.> @' The ,o+rt fo+nd that the defendant had intentiona&&0 dire,ted his ,ond+,t towards Ca&ifornia4 5nowing that the effe,ts of registering the p&aintiff7s trademar5s wo+&d 1e fe&t in that state as that was its prin,ipa& p&a,e of 1+siness. Minim+m ,onta,ts were th+s satisfied on this 1asis. The effe,ts test in /anavson was 6+oted with fa/or in the Ontario S+perior Co+rt ,ase of Itravel2222.com.ca. @2
Itravel2222.com Inc. >c.o.#. Itravel? v. 3agan *n an app&i,ation for an inter&o,+tor0 in9+n,tion4 the Ontario S+perior Co+rt referred to the Ameri,an de,ision of /anavson and its app&i,ation of the effe,ts test in determining proper persona& 9+risdi,tion. J+risdi,tiona& iss+es are who&&0 +nin/o&/ed here4 as 1oth parties are <F @A( .S. EF< ('CF@) at EFC. <C Supra note C. @) I#d. at '<2'. @' I#d. @2 Itravel2222.com Inc. >c.o.#. Itravel? v. 3agan4 2))' O.J. No.C@< on&ine: OL (CJ). Cited from Peter P. Swire4 @5 0lep!ants4 Mce4 and /rvacyA Internatonal 6!oce o5 La( and t!e Internet4 <2 *NT7L LA3. CC' ('CCF). '2 residents of Ontario. This 9+di,ia& referen,e is ,ertain&0 noteworth0 as it wo+&d appear that the Ontario ,o+rt was imp&i,it&0 endorsing the +se of the effe,ts test in determining a ,o+rt7s 9+risdi,tion to ad9+di,ate and was pa/ing the wa0 for its adoption sho+&d f+t+re opport+nities arise. $. <A(ta+ O"+i"e Sa+e&= Te&t /ro16 Ltd. v . 6omputer 6ty Inc *n /ro16 Ltd. v. 6omputer 6ty Inc 73 4 the Ontario Co+rt of Appea& had an opport+nit0 to address the s,ope of 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tion in ,01erspa,e. Pro. C4 the Ontario p&aintiff was the owner of a software trademar54 3ingen4 in Canada and the nited States. The defendant4 Comp+ter Cit0 so&d an in.ho+se &ine of ,omp+ters that was a&so ,a&&ed 3ingen. -rom the o+tset4 Comp+ter Cit0 was aware of the registrations of the trade.mar5 3ingen owned 10 Pro.C. The ,omp+ters were offered for sa&e in a&& the nited States o+t&ets 1+t not in Canada. The on&0 ,onne,tion Comp+ter Cit0 had with Canada was its we1site B(((.computercty.com whi,h it +sed to ad/ertise and pro/ide prod+,t information. The p&aintiff 1ro+ght an a,tion in trademar5 infringement in Ontario +nder the Trademar* ;ct. 77 The appea& t+rned on whether +nder the Trademar* ;ct4 Comp+ter Cit0 has =+sed> the trademar5 3ingen =in asso,iation with wares>. The ,o+rt r+&ed that Comp+ter Cit0Is =passi/e we1site ,o+&d not ,onstit+te a +se in asso,iation with wares 1e,a+se no transfer of ownership was possi1&e thro+gh that medi+m.> @( As o1ser/ed 10 the Co+rt4 =Comp+ter Cit0Is site did not ha/e intera,tion with ,+stomers .. it +sed the site on&0 to post information. A phone n+m1er was in,&+ded for re,ei/ing orders 1+t no sa&es were made dire,t&0 to Canada or in Canada. > @A Admitted&04 whi&e the Co+rt of Appea& made no mention of .ppo4 in its e8amination of whether a,t+a& sa&es were made with Canada /ia the we1site4 it wo+&d appear the ,o+rt was see5ing a stri,ter ne8+s 1etween the for+m state and ,01er. a,tor than what the origina& .ppo framewor5 wo+&d pro/ide. 0ast!aven Ltd. v. Nutrsystem.com Inc. -o&&owing 6omputer 6ty4 Ontario ,o+rts had the opport+nit0 to re./isit the iss+e of 9+risdi,tion on the *nternet in 0ast!aven 7, 4 and this time ro+nd4 the ,o+rt ana&0;ed .ppo more ,&ose&0. The p&aintiff ,orporation4 Eastha/en4 was the owner of the domain name =sweets+,,ess.,om P. The @< B2))'D O.J. No. <A)) on&ine: OL (CJ).Bhereinafter 6omputer 6tyD ,ited from Peter P. Swire4 @5 0lep!ants4 Mce4 and /rvacyA Internatonal 6!oce o5 La( and t!e Internet4 <2 *NT7L LA3. CC' ('CCF). @@ &.S.6. 1C-= c. T113. @( Supra note <E at para. '@. @A Supra note <E at para. (. @E Supra note '). '< defendant4 N+tris0stem.,om *n,.4 was an Ameri,an ,orporation engaged in the mar5eting4 sa&es and distri1+tion of weight &oss programs on and off&ine. N+tris0stem.,om *n, a&so owned ,ertain PSweet S+,,essP trademar5s whi,h it had +sed in ,onne,tion with the weight &oss prod+,ts. Eastha/en had so+ght a 9+di,ia& de,&aration in Ontario that the domain name of =sweets+,,ess.,om> 1e&onged to Eastha/en and not N+tris0stem.,om *n,. The Ontario S+perior Co+rt e8p&i,it&0 appro/ed of the app&i,ation of the three prong =minim+m ,onta,ts> test to determine whether there was a =rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion> 1etween the parties and the s+19e,t matter of the s+it. @F 3hat is e/en more noteworth0 in this ,ase is that the Co+rt he&d that for the defendant to a/ai& itse&f of the pri/i&eges of doing 1+siness in the for+m state4 ( the first prong of the minim+m ,onta,ts test )4 the defendant7s operation of a f+&&0 intera,ti/e we1site wo+&d not in itse&f s+ffi,e. As he&d 10 the ,o+rt4 N+tris0stem.,om ,ond+,ted on&ine sa&es 1+t it had =not done an0 a,t nor ,ons+mmated an0 transa,tion within Ontario.> @C *t wo+&d appear that the Ontario Co+rt here4 whi&e e8p&i,it&0 app&0ing the .ppo test4 it has in rea&it0 refined its &ega& framewor5. 3hi&e +nder the .ppo approa,h4 a defendant7s +se of a f+&&0 intera,ti/e we1site with the ,apa1i&it0 of ,ond+,ting e&e,troni, ,ommer,e wo+&d on itse&f 9+stif0 proper persona& 9+risdi,tion4 the 0ast!aven ,o+rt &oo5ed not to potentia& 1+t a,t+a& on&ine sa&es with the for+m state. This4 as respe,tf+&&0 s+1mitted 10 this writer4 wo+&d appear to 1e a ,&earer indi,ation that the defendant had p+rposef+&&0 (a&1eit e&e,troni,a&&0) dire,ted his a,ti/it0 in a s+1stantia& wa0 to the for+m state. Cate,or# 29 A(ta+ O"+i"e Sa+e& or Tar,eti", Mllennum 0nters.4 Inc. v. Mllennum Musc This ne8t step forward was +nderta5en 10 the Oregon Co+rt in Mllennum Musc =2 whi,h adopted a d+a& approa,h to the determination of 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro&. This d+a& approa,h springs from the refinement of 1oth the effe,ts test in Panavson and the Gs&iding s,a&e7 test in .ppo. The p&aintiff4 M+si, Mi&&enni+m4 operated m+si, retai& 1+siness in Oregon whi&e the defendants4 Mi&&enni+m M+si, ran a m+si, retai& 1+siness in North and So+th Caro&ina. The defendants a&so operated an intera,ti/e we1 site where it so&d ,ompa,t dis,s on&ine. The p&aintiff had s+1se6+ent&0 s+ed the defendants in the state of Oregon for trademar5 infringement and the defendants so+ght a dismissa& of the s+it on the 1asis that the state of Oregon did not ha/e persona& 9+risdi,tion. *n de,iding whether Oregon had persona& 9+risdi,tion4 the ,o+rt proposed to @F I#d. at <@<. @C I#d. () Supra note ''. '@ app&0 1oth the effe,ts test and the Gs&iding s,a&e7 r+&e. 3hen app&0ing the effe,ts test4 the ,o+rt he&d that there were no e/iden,e that defendant intentiona&&0 dire,ted its a,ti/ities at Oregon4 5nowing that p&aintiff wo+&d 1e harmed in that for+m. (' *t wo+&d appear that for a p&aintiff to s+,,eed +nder the effe,ts test4 the defendants m+st 5now that the p&aintiff wo+&d s+ffer harm not 9+st in an0 state4 1+t in the for+m state where the a,tion wo+&d 1e p+rs+ed. This is a new de/e&opment from /anavson as in that ,ase4 whi&e the p&aintiff had ,&ear&0 so+ght to e8tort mone0 from the p&aintiff4 it does not &ogi,a&&0 fo&&ow that his a,tions ,ontemp&ated an e/ent+a& in9+r0 to the p&aintiff in Ca&ifornia. The defendant7s a,tions ,o+&d not 1e spe,ifi,a&&0 dire,ted towards Ca&ifornia an0 more than the0 ,o+&d 1e dire,ted towards an0 state. *t wo+&d appear that in /anavson4 the ,o+rt simp&0 ass+med that the defendant 5new the p&aintiff wo+&d &i5e&0 s+ffer harm in the for+m state 1e,a+se that was its prin,ipa& p&a,e of 1+siness. The ,o+rt in Mllennum Musc4 howe/er demanded a stri,ter ne8+s 1etween the for+m state and the ,o+rse of a,tion. ?espite the fa,t that Oregon was the p&aintiff7s prin,ipa& p&a,e of 1+siness4 the ,o+rt he&d that e/en if the defendants 5new of the p&aintiffIs e8isten,e in Oregon4 e/iden,e m+st 1e add+,ed that the defendants dire,ted their ,ond+,t at that for+m. !i/en this new de/e&opment4 it wo+&d appear that the ,o+rt was shifting its fo,+s from an effe,ts. 1ased ana&0sis to a targeting. ,entered framewor5. *t is not eno+gh for the effe,ts of the in9+r0 to ha/e 1een s+stained in that for+m state4 the tort.feasor has to target the /i,tim in that re6+isite 9+risdi,tion.. Not ,ontent to 9+st app&0 the targeting test4 the ,o+rt ana&0;ed the .ppo r+&e a&ong side4 and modified the test in its app&i,ation. The ,o+rt fo+nd that = the midd&e intera,ti/e ,ategor0 of *nternet ,onta,ts as des,ri1ed in .ppo needs f+rther refinement to in,&+de the f+ndamenta& re6+irement of persona& 9+risdi,tion: de&i1erate a,tion within the for+m state in the form of transa,tions 1etween the defendant and residents of the for+m or ,ond+,t of the defendant p+rposef+&&0 dire,ted at residents of the for+m state. > (2 Remar5a1&04 this ,o+rt had s+1s+med the effe,ts test within the fo&ds of the .ppo approa,h. E8panding +pon .ppo4 the ,o+rt f+rther he&d that whi&e the defendant operated an intera,ti/e we1site4 =the fa,t that someone who a,,esses defendantsI 3e1 site ,an p+r,hase a ,ompa,t dis, does not render defendantsI a,tions Gp+rposef+&&0 dire,ted 7 at this for+m. > (< Pre/io+s&0 in .ppo4 an engagement in e&e,troni, ,ommer,e per se wo+&d 9+stif0 proper 9+risdi,tion. Now4 the ,o+rt has progressed from &oo5ing at the defendant7s ,apa,it0 to do 1+siness o/er the *nternet to a,t+a&&0 identif0ing a,t+a& sa&es with the for+m state. As right&0 ,on,&+ded 10 the ,o+rt4 =it is the ,ond+,t of the defendants4 rather than the medi+m +ti&i;ed 10 (' I#d. at C22. (2 Supra note '' at C2'. (< I#d. '( them4 to whi,h the parameters of spe,ifi, 9+risdi,tion app&0.> (@ *t wo+&d appear that in Mllennum M+si,4 the Co+rt was propo+nding the ,on,+rrent +se of 1oth the G targeting 7 and the Ga,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 testsK the satisfa,tion of either test +nder this d+a& approa,h wo+&d permit proper 9+di,ia& 9+risdi,tiona& assertions. 11-22 3lo(ers Incorporated v /!onenames Lmted A,ross the o,ean4 in the nited "ingdom4 the #ritish ,o+rts were first ,onfronted with a *nternet 9+risdi,tiona& iss+e in 11 -22 3lo(ers (( .'.F)) -&owers was a ,ompan0 in,orporated in the nited States4 whi,h ,arried on an internationa& f&ora& te&emar5eting 1+siness /ia their we1 site and a to&& free phone n+m1er s0stem. *n the nited States4 the to&& free n+m1er that a,,essed -&ower7s mar5eting s0stem was '.F)).<(A.C<EE. E8pressed in Pa&pha.n+meri,P terms4 the to&& free n+m1er was the e6+i/a&ent of '.F)).-LO3ERS. -&owers a&so maintained an intera,ti/e we1site with the address www.'F))f&owers.,om. Phonenames was a #ritish ,ompan0 responsi1&e for promoting and mar5eting the a&pha.n+meri, ,on,ept in the nited "ingdom. -&owers had s+1se6+ent&0 app&ied +nder s 'E(') of the nited "ingdom Trade Mar*s ;ct 1C3- to register the trade mar5 F)).-LO3ERS 1+t their registration was opposed 10 Phonenames. The 9+risdi,tiona& iss+e t+rned on whether -&owers for the p+rposes of se,tion 'E of the Trade Mar*s ;ct4 had esta1&ished = +se >of the trademar5 in the nited "ingdom. *n the " Co+rt of Appea&4 Par5er LJ had he&d that the a,,ess of the App&i,ant7s we1site from the nited "ingdom was not eno+gh to esta1&ish +se of the trademar5 in #ritain. #+8ton LJ e&a1orated +pon this4 stating that e/en tho+gh orders had 1een p&a,ed 10 the we1site 10 persons whose ,redit ,ard addresses were in the nited "ingdom4 it did not fo&&ow that these ,&ients a,t+a&&0 were in #ritain. There was no e/iden,e to s+pport the pi,t+re =of a pattern of trade 10 ,+stomers in the nited "ingdom.> (A This sear,h for an on&ine =pattern of trade> 1etween two ,o+ntries is simi&ar to the Ga,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 test propo+nded in 0ast!aven and Mllennum Musc. *n dismissing the App&i,ant7s ,&aims4 #+8ton LJ he&d in addition4 that =there is something inherent&0 +nrea&isti, in sa0ing that A +ses his mar5 in the nited "ingdom when a&& he does is to p&a,e the mar5 on the *nternet4 from a &o,ation o+tside of the nited "ingdom. > (E There has to 1e =some a,ti/e step> +nderta5en 10 the +ser =that goes 1e0ond pro/iding fa,i&ities that ena1&e others to 1ring the mar5 into the area.> (F This =a,ti/e step> test seems a5in to the targeting test as e&+,idated +pon in Mllennum Musc.*t wo+&d appear that the #ritish ,o+rts ha/e independent&0 de/e&oped a 9+risdi,tiona& framewor5 that 1ears m+,h (@ I#d. (( Supra note '2. (A S+pra note '2 at para. '<'. (E Supra note '2 at para. '<E. (F Supra note '2 at para. '<F. 'A sem1&an,e to the d+a&. approa,h +nderta5en in Mllennum Musc. This 1rings m+,h promise to the g&o1a& mo/e toward greater ,ertaint0 for *nternet 9+risdi,tions. Cate,or# 49 Tar,eti", t8e Vi(ti! i" t8e Spe(i7i( For! State 6alla(ay )ol5 6orp. v. &oyal 6anadan )ol5 ;ss<n The &atest de/e&opment pertaining to 9+risdi,tiona& iss+es in ,01erspa,e s+rfa,ed in the Ameri,an de,ision of 6alla(ay (C . The Ca&ifornian ,o+rt4 whi&e endorsing Mllennum Musc4 effe,ti/e&0 strips awa0 the Ga,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 test from its fo&ds. The p&aintiff4 Ca&&awa04 a ?e&aware ,orporation head6+artered in Ca&ifornia4 was a man+fa,t+rer of go&f ,&+1s. The defendant4 Ro0a& Canadian !o&f Asso,iation was a non.profit Canadian ,ompan0 ,hartered 10 the Canadian go/ernment as the go/erning 1od0 of Canadian menIs amate+r go&f. The RC!A had made p+1&i, its de,ision to pre,&+de +se of named go&f ,&+1s in its reg+&ation go&f to+rnaments and one of Ca&&awa0Is 1rand of go&f ,&+1s was mentioned in the Canadian asso,iationIs anno+n,ement. The p&aintiff thereafter fi&ed s+it against defendant in Ca&ifornia a&&eging ,&aims for trade &i1e& and defamation. The defendant so+ght a dismissa& on the 1asis that the for+m state did not ha/e persona& 9+risdi,tion o/er the Asso,iation. -o&&owing Mllennum Musc4 the ,o+rt app&ied the targeting test to determine the presen,e of =minim+m ,onta,ts>. The Ca&ifornian ,o+rt he&d that the p&aintiff did not =add+,e fa,ts s+ffi,ient to esta1&ish that defendant 5new or sho+&d ha/e 5nown p&aintiff was a resident of Ca&ifornia4 had its prin,ipa& p&a,e of 1+siness in Ca&ifornia4 or otherwise wo+&d fee& the 1r+nt of the effe,ts of defendantIs a,tions in Ca&ifornia.> A) As de,ided 10 the ,o+rt4 =mere&0 5nowing a ,orporate defendant might 1e &o,ated in Ca&ifornia does not f+&fi&& the effe,ts test.> A' *t is instr+,ti/e that the ,o+rt de,&ined 9+risdi,tion e/en where the for+m state in disp+te was a&so the &o,ation of the defendant7s prin,ipa& p&a,e of 1+siness. The defendant had to target the for+m state in parti,+&ar4 and in9+ries s+stained 10 the p&aintiff in its prin,ipa& p&a,e of 1+siness wo+&d not in itse&f4 s+ffi,e to 9+stif0 proper persona& 9+risdi,tion. Simi&ar to Mllennum Musc4 the ,o+rt here ,on,+rrent&0 app&ied the modified .ppo Da,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 r+&e in the e8amination of the defendant7s we1 site. The ,o+rt fo+nd that the defendant did ,on,&+de on&ine sa&es with one person in the for+m state Ca&ifornia /ia the we1 site. $ere in 6alla(ay4 the ,o+rt was &eft to hand&e a /ita& 6+estion &eft +nanswered 10 the Mllennum Musc. 3hen there were a,t+a& sa&es ,ond+,ted with the for+m state /ia the operation of the defendant7s intera,ti/e we1 site4 1+t the sa&es were +nre&ated to the &aws+it in 6+estion4 wo+&d minim+m (C Supra note '<. A) Supra note '< at '<. A' I#d. 'E ,onta,ts 1e satisfiedQ The ,o+rt in Mllennum Musc s5irted this iss+e 1e,a+se on the fa,ts4 the defendantsI we1 site did not ,onstit+te p+rposef+& a/ai&ment of this for+m state as no on&ine sa&es were ,on,&+ded with it. The 6alla(ay ,o+rt he&d that for a ,o+rt to e8er,ise spe,ifi, persona& 9+risdi,tion4 = the ,onta,ts ,onstit+ting p+rposef+& a/ai&ment m+st 1e the ones that gi/e rise to the ,+rrent s+it. > A2 3hi&e the RC!A ma0 ha/e p+rpose&0 a/ai&ed itse&f of Ca&ifornia as a for+m 10 engaging in ,ommer,ia& a,ti/it0 thro+gh its 3e1 site4 the ,o+rt ,on,&+ded that minim+m ,onta,ts were not satisfied as the disp+te did not arise from these on&ine ,onta,ts with Ca&ifornia. *t is +n,ertain whether the ,o+rt in 6alla(ay had +nderstood the imp&i,ations of its de,ision4 1+t effe,ti/e&0 it had dismant&ed the entire Gs&iding intera,ti/it07 framewor5 a&ong with the Ga,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 r+&e. #0 &oo5ing for a,t+a& on&ine sa&es with the for+m state and the need for the disp+te to arise from those sa&es in 6+estion4 effe,ti/e&0 what the ,o+rt is determining is whether the defendant /ia its we1 site had targeted the p&aintiff spe,ifi,a&&0 in the for+m state. After a&&4 the on&0 wa0 a defendant ,an ,on,&+de sa&es on&ine with the for+m state and ha/e the disp+te arising from this same on&ine ,onta,t is for the defendant to ha/e targeted the p&aintiff in the for+m state a&& a&ong. *t wo+&d seem that what now remains of the .ppo r+&e is no different from the targeting test &aid down in Mllennum Musc. A"a+#&i&; Fi>e Sta"'ar'& 3ith a gradation of /ar0ing ne8+s 1etween the for+m state and the ,01er a,t4 the determinati/e 6+estion is whi,h standard or test wo+&d 1est ser/e the p+rposes of asserting 9+di,ia& ,ontro& in ,01erspa,e. &timate&04 the answer rests on po&i,0 ,hoi,es. As e&+,idated +pon a1o/e4 the Categor0 ' Gmere a,,essi1i&it07 approa,h is far too intr+si/e4 as it permits a dra,onian rea,h into ,01erspa,e4 regard&ess of whether the parties had an0 ,onne,tions whatsoe/er with the for+m state in disp+te. The s+19+gation of e/er0 we1site to g&o1a& 9+risdi,tion wo+&d +ndermine *nternet growth as man0 we1masters wo+&d forego the te,hno&og0 for fear of its se,ondar0 reper,+ssions. The .ppo approa,h in Categor0 2 ma0 1e &ess dra,onian in its s,ope4 1+t nonethe&ess4 10 aggregating the assertion of persona& 9+risdi,tion to the =nat+re and 6+a&it0 of ,ommer,ia& a,ti/it0 that an entit0 ,ond+,ts o/er the *nternet>4 A< it di&+tes the in,enti/es of a we1 operator in +p&oading an intera,ti/e we1site with the ,apa,it0 to ,ond+,t e&e,troni, ,ommer,e. 3hi&e p+1&i, po&i,0 see5s to in,rease ,01er intera,ti/it04 enhan,e ,ons+mer ,hoi,es and widen 1+siness frontiers4 the .ppo test stands as an o1sta,&e to this progression. The a,t+a& ,onta,ts ana&0sis +nder&0ing the Categor0 < ,ases does pro/ide a tena1&e framewor5 to determining 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro&. #+t the A2 Supra note '< at 2(. A< Supra note <2. 'F two 1ran,hes of the test i.e. the effe,ts 1ased and the a,t+a& on&ine sa&es ana&0sis sho+&d 1e app&ied ,on,+rrent&0 instead of 1eing 9+8taposed as a&ternati/es to ea,h other. *n /anavson4 the ,o+rt had he&d that the =app&i,ation of the p+rposef+& a/ai&ment prong differs depending on whether the +nder&0ing ,&aim is a tort or ,ontra,t ,&aim.> A@ This s+ggests that where an a,tion arises in tort4 ,o+rts sho+&d app&0 on&0 the effe,ts 1ased test. This &ega& r+&e is pro1&emati, on two a,,o+nts. -irst&04 this segregation is not 1orne o+t 10 ,ase &aw. After a&&4 the ,&assi, .ppo test arose from a tortio+s ,&aim in trademar5 infringement. Se,ond&04 it +nd+&0 narrows the s,ope of 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro& as tort feasors often do not intentiona&&0 aim their a,tions at a parti,+&ar for+m state. Some torts &i5e trademar5 infringement are independent of the tort feasor7s mens rea whi&e others torts &i5e defamation are dire,ted at the person and not the for+m. $en,e4 to app&0 the effe,ts test e8,&+si/e&0 to determine 9+risdi,tion wo+&d e8,+&pate too man0 ,01er. tort feasors from &ia1i&it0 in ,01erspa,e. #0 the a1o/ementioned reasoning4 the e8,&+si/e +se of the spe,ifi, for+m. targeting test as &aid down in 6alla(ay (Categor0 ( ,ase) wo+&d fa,e the same o19e,tion as 1eing too narrow in s,ope. Maintaining s+,h a stri,t ne8+s 1etween the for+m state and the ,01er a,t wo+&d handi,ap o+r ,o+rt7s effort to reg+&ate ,01er a,ti/ities that ha/e a rea& and s+1stantia& ,onne,tion with Canada. The a,t+a& on&ine test permits ,o+rts in finding proper 9+risdi,tion4 to ta5e into a,,o+nt the e&e,troni, ,ommer,ia& transa,tions ,ond+,ted 10 we1 operator with the for+m state4 e/en if the transa,tions are who&&0 +nre&ated to the +nder&0ing disp+te in 6+estion. This sho+&d 1e permissi1&e4 gi/en that a foreign ,orporation has 1enefited from its ,ommer,e with Canada4 it sho+&d sim+&taneo+s&0 1e s+19e,ted to the 1+rdens of s+,h an asso,iation. 6alla(ay7s e8,&+si/e targeting ana&0sis4 witho+t the app&i,ation of the Ga,t+a& on&ine sa&es7 test4 wo+&d hen,e pro/ide tort feasors with +nwarranted ref+ge and prote,tion in ,01erspa,e. The d+a&isti, approa,h of app&0ing 1oth the targeting.,entered framewor5 and the a,t+a& on&ine sa&es test as e8emp&ified in the ,ategor0 @ ,ases stri5es the right 1a&an,e in asserting 9+risdi,tiona& ,ontro& in ,01erspa,e. 3hi&e ,o+rts sho+&d g+ard against s+19e,ting on&ine 1+sinesses to the possi1i&it0 of fa,ing s+it in e/er0 9+risdi,tion in the wor&d4 the0 sho+&d a&so a/oid t+rning the *nternet into a ha/en for ,01er torts. 3hi&e the a,t+a& on&ine test ens+res that ,orporations 1ears the 1+rden of an0 1enefits g&eaned from *nternet transa,tions with the for+m state4 the ,on,+rrent app&i,ation of the targeting framewor5 ens+res that the indi/id+a&s are not e8,+&pated for their ,01er intentiona& torts. O+r Canadian de,isions are most&0 gro+ped within Categor0 <. Mllennum Musc has 0et fo+nd its wa0 into o+r Canadian 9+rispr+den,e4 1+t with time there wo+&d 1e an a&ignment4 gi/en the positi/e adoption of Ameri,an 9+rispr+den,e4 as o1ser/ed in 0ast!aven. 3hi&e there is a need for a ,ond+,i/e &ega& en/ironment to sp+r the A@ Supra note @). 'C growth of on&ine 1+sinesses and harness the f+&& potentia& of the information te,hno&og0 re/o&+tion4 wisdom di,tates that ,o+rts sho+&d not go o/er1oard and fo&&ow the &i5es of 6alla(ay. The 6alla(ay ,o+rt had set s+,h a $er,+&ean thresho&d for a ,omp&ainant to s+rmo+nt4 that ,01er tort feasors ma0 easi&0 s&ip thro+gh the &ega& ,ra,5s. To date4 Mllennum Musc pro/ides the 1est 9+rispr+dentia& framewor5 0et to de&ineate &ega& 1orders in ,01erspa,e. On&ine 1+sinesses sho+&d in,orporate this 9+ridi,a& test in their &ega& ris5 assessment of the *nternet. To enhan,e greater &ega& ,ertaint04 the app&i,ation of this 9+ridi,a& test ma0 1e ,omp&emented 10 the insertion of for+m se&e,tion ,&a+ses into on&ine ,ontra,ts and the emp&o0ment of /ario+s geographi, identifi,ation software to pin. point +ser &o,ation. These efforts wo+&d assist on&ine 1+sinesses in a/oiding s+its in 9+risdi,tions 1e0ond their ,ontemp&ation. Ot8er *ara!eter& ?eo,rap8i( I'e"ti7i(atio" Te(8"o+o,# 3e1 operators ,an harness /ario+s geographi, te,hno&og0 too&s to identif0 the &o,ation of +sers on the *nternet4 so as to target its sa&es in spe,ifi, 9+risdi,tions or to a/oid engaging in on&ine ,ommer,e with others. Sin,e the a,t+a& on&ine sa&es test is a ma9or ,omponent of the Mllennum ana&0sis4 with this te,hno&og04 we1 1+sinesses ,an a/oid ,ontra,ting on&ine with ,ons+mers who are not /erified as residing in the desired 9+risdi,tions. New&0 de/e&oped +ser identifi,ation too&s s+,h as EdgeS,ape4 *nfosp&it4 Net!eo A( are some of the te,hno&og0 a/ai&a1&e to map the &o,ations of *nternet +sers more a,,+rate&0. A&ternati/e&04 off&ine identifi,ation s+,h as ,redit ,ard /erifi,ation ma0 1e +sed 10 on&ine 1+sinesses to pin point +ser address. As ,redit ,ards are the most ,ommon means of pa0ment on the *nternet4 1+sinesses in /erif0ing the /a&idit0 of the ,redit ,ards d+ring on&ine transa,tions ma0 a&so o1tain ,onfirmation of the +ser7s address /ia the independent finan,ia& intermediar0. This method a&so pro/ides on&ine 1+sinesses with the ,apa1i&it0 to estop transa,tions from 1eing ,on,&+ded with +ndesired &ega& 9+risdi,tions. For! Se+e(tio" C+a&e& A( See M. !eist4 = *s there a There ThereQ Towards !reater Certaint0 for *nternet J+risdi,tion > Rhttp:SSai8'.+ottawa.,aSTgeistSframeset.htm&U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E) 2) #+sinesses ma0 a&so pre.empt 9+risdi,tiona& ,on,erns 10 inserting for+m se&e,tion ,&a+ses into on&ine ,ontra,ts. The Ontario S+perior Co+rt in &udder v. Mcroso5t 6orp AA has +phe&d the enfor,ea1i&it0 of a ,&i,5 wrap agreement in whi,h +sers t0pi,a&&0 ,&i,5 on the =* agree> i,on to indi,ate assent to an agreement that wo+&d often in,&+de a for+m se&e,tion ,&a+se. As he&d in &udder4 it is in the interests of P,ommer,ia& ,ertaint0P to +pho&d a for+m se&e,tion agreement. A ,ontrar0 position wo+&d =wo+&d &ead to ,haos in the mar5etp&a,e4 render ineffe,t+a& e&e,troni, ,ommer,e and +ndermine the integrit0 of an0 agreement entered into thro+gh this medi+m.> AE The &udder ,o+rt whi&e agreeing that the in,&+sion of an e8,&+si/e 9+risdi,tion ,&a+se is not a1so&+te&0 determinati/e nonethe&ess he&d that the ,hoi,e of the parties sho+&d 1e respe,ted +n&ess =there is strong ,a+se to o/erride the agreement.P The 1+rden for a showing of a Pstrong ,a+seP rests with the app&i,ant resisting the for+m se&e,tion ,&a+se and the thresho&d to 1e s+rpassed is 1e0ond the mere =1a&an,e of ,on/enien,e.> $en,e4 whi&e a for+m se&e,tion ,&a+se is not enfor,ea1&e per se4 10 inserting one within a ,&i,5 wrap agreement4 on&ine 1+sinesses ,an se,+re a ta,ti,a& ad/antage in arg+ing for the 9+risdi,tion it desires. AF J+risdi,tiona& ,&a+ses fo+nd in ,&i,5 wrap agreements sho+&d 1e ,ontrasted with those ,ontained in the terms of +se agreement on the we1 site where +sers are 1o+nd to a&& the terms stip+&ated 10 /irt+e of the +se of the site in 6+estion. The /a&idit0 of this mode of assent has 1een ,a&&ed into 6+estion 10 the nited States ,o+rt in Tc*etmaster /. Tc*ets.com4 Inc. AC 4 where it was he&d that the for+m se&e,tion ,&a+se was not enfor,ea1&e as it was not 1ro+ght s+ffi,ient&0 to the attention of the +ser. To date4 a Canadian ,o+rt has 0et r+&ed on the /a&idit0 of a 9+risdi,tiona& ,&a+se ,ontained in a terms of +se agreement. $en,e4 we1 operators doing on&ine 1+siness with Canada sho+&d err on the side of ,a+tion and +se ,&i,5 wrap agreements instead of term of +se agreements to stip+&ate 9+risdi,tiona& ,&a+ses. Co"(+&io" J+risdi,tion hinges on a state7s dominan,e o/er a geographi, area. *n ,ontrast4 the *nternet is an e8pression of the a1i&it0 of te,hno&og0 to fa,i&itate ,omm+ni,ation and transa,tions independent of geographi,a& 1o+ndaries. The me,hani,s of 9+risdi,tion th+s sits +neasi&0 with the amorpho+s str+,t+re of ,01erspa,e. The de/e&opment of the Mllennum Musc test hen,e 1rings greater promise to the de&ineation of &ega& 1orders in ,01erspa,e. The f&e8i1i&it0 of the ,ommon &aw in adapting to this new medi+m is integra& to this e/o&+tion. This 9+ridi,a& test s+pp&ies on&ine AA ('CCC) @E C.C.L.T (2d) 'AF Bhereinafter &udderD AE I#d. at 'E@. AF Supra note (2 at 'E'. AC 2))' .S. App. Le8is '@(@ on&ine: Le8is (nited States). 2' 1+sinesses with a /a&+a1&e aid to assessing their &ega& &ia1i&ities in ,01erspa,e4 and enhan,es ,ertaint0 in the efforts to order their affairs in ,omp&ian,e with the &aw. To a/oid &ega& ramifi,ations in +ndesired 9+risdi,tions4 we1 operators are a&so we&& ad/ised to in,&+de for+m se&e,tion ,&a+ses in on&ine agreements and harness the +se of geographi, identifi,ation te,hno&og0 to &o,ate +ser addresses. The f+&& potentia&s of a wor&d. wide mar5et in ,01erspa,e is a&&+ring 1+t its fr+its has to 1e ,+&ti/ated pr+dent&0. A fine 1a&an,e needs to 1e str+,5 1etween reg+&ation and re/o&+tion. Bi$+io,rap8# Li&t o7 Ca&e&; -. 11-22 3lo(ers Incorporated v /!onenames Lmted4 Le8is B2))'D E3CA Ci/ E2'. .. $ensusan &estaurant 6orporaton /. %ng4 C<E -.S+pp. 2C( ('CCA). /. #rainte,h / "osti+54 ('CCC) C 3.3.R. '<<. 2. $urger %ng v &ud'e(c'4 @E' .S. @A2 ('CF@) at @EA. 4. 6alder /. +ones 4 @A( .S. EF< ('CF@) at EFC. 6. 6alla(ay )ol5 6orp. v. &oyal 6anadan )ol5 ;ss<n4 '2( -. S+pp. 2d ''C@K 2))) .S. ?ist. Le8is 'C)<2. 3. 0ast!aven Ltd. v. Nutrsystem.com Inc.4 (2))') (( O.R. (<d) <<@. 5. )utnc* v Do( +ones4 B2))'D JSC <)(4 Le8is #C2))')@CF). @. Hunt v T & N plc4 B'CC<D @ S.C.R. 2FC. -A. Inset Systems4 Inc. v Instructon Set4 Inc4 C<E -.S+pp. 'A' ('CCA). --. Internatonal S!oe v "as!ngton4 <2A .S. <') ('C@(). -.. Itravel2222.com Inc. >c.o.#. Itravel? v. 3agan4 2))' O.J. No.C@<. -/. Mart'4 Inc /. 6y#er)old4 C@E -.S+pp '<2F ('CCA). -2. Mllennum 0nters.4 Inc. v. Mllennum Musc4 << -.S+pp. 2d C)E ('CCC). -4. Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye4 B'CC)D < S.C.R. ')EE. 1! /anavson Internatonal4 L./. v. Toeppen4 171 3.3d 1318. -3. /ro16 Ltd. v. 6omputer 6ty Inc4 B2))'D O.J. No. <A)). 22 -5. &udder v. Mcroso5t 6orp4 ('CCC) @E C.C.L.T (2d) 'AF . -@. Tc*etmaster v. Tc*ets.com4 Inc.4 2))' .S. App. Le8is '@(@. .A. .ppo Manu5acturng 6o v. .ppo Dot 6om4 Inc4 C(2 -.S+pp. '''C ('CCE). BooB& -. #. Soo5man4 6omputer4 Internet and 0lectronc 6ommerce La(4 (Toronto: Carswe&&4 2)))). .. !. Ta5a,h4 6omputer La(4 (Toronto: *rwin Law4 'CCF). /. M !eist4 Internet La( n 6anada4 (Toronto4 Capt+s Press4 2)))). Se(o"'ar# Materia+9 Arti(+e& -. Ameri,an #ar Asso,iation4 ;c!evng Legal and $usness @rder n 6y#erspaceA ; &eport on )lo#al +ursdcton Issues 6reated #y t!e Internet (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). .. #ernadette Jew4 6y#er1Eursdcton F 0mergng Issues and 6on5lcts o5 La( (!en @verseas 6ourts 6!allenge your "e# Rhttp:SSwww.,am&a.asn.a+U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). /. #rad&e0 A. S&+ts504 +ursdcton over 6ommerce on t!e Internet Rhttp:SSwww.5s&aw.,omS&i1rar0Sarti,&es.aspQ'2<U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). 2. ?a/id R. Johnson and ?a/id !. Post4 La( and $orders11T!e &se o5 La( n 6y#erspace4 @F Stanford Law Re/iew '<AE ('CCA) 4. ?a/id R. Johnson4 Due /rocess and 6y#er1 EursdctonRhttp:SSwww.as,+s,.orgS9,m,S/o&2Siss+e'Sd+e.htm&U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). 6. $enr0 M. Cooper4 +ursdctonal Trends n 6y#erspaceRhttp:SSwww.&aw.stetson.ed+S,o+rsesSh,ooper.htmU (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). 3. Jeffre0 R. "+ester and Jennifer M. !ra/es4 /ersonal +ursdcton on t!e InternetA "!ere s 6y#erspaceG Rhttp:SSwww.t5hr.,omSarti,&esSpersona&.htm&U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). 5. John S Ma, "en;ie4 +ursdcton and 0n5orcement Rhttp:SSwww.so&.,o.+5S9S9ma,5en;ieSarti,&esS9+risdi,tion.htmU (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). @. M. !eist4 Is t!ere a T!ere T!ereG To(ards )reater 6ertanty 5or Internet +ursdctonRhttp:SSai8'.+ottawa.,aSTgeistSframeset.htm&U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). -A. Ogi&/0 Rena+&t4 +ursdcton and t!e InternetA ;re Tradtonal &ules 0noug!G Rhttp:SSwww.&aw.+a&1erta.,aSa&riS+&,S,+rrentSe9+risd.htmU (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). 2< --. Peter P. Swire4 @5 0lep!ants4 Mce4 and /rvacyA Internatonal 6!oce o5 La( and t!e Internet4 <2 *NT7L LA3. CC' ('CCF). -.. Stephan 3i&s5e4 Internatonal +ursdcton n 6y#erspaceA "!c! States May &egulate t!e InternetG T!e 3ve tests o5 correct 5orum4 Rhttp:SSwww.&aw.indiana.ed+Sf,&9Sp+1sS/()Sno'Swi&s5e.htm&U (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). -/. Stephen T. Maher4 Not!ng /ersonalG /ersonal +ursdcton and t!e Internet Rhttp:SSwww.+s+a&.,omSarti,&eF.htmU (As /isited on ')S)2S)E). -2. Thomas P. Jartanian4 T!e 6on5luence o5 Internatonal4 3ederal and State +ursdcton over nternet n t!e paradgm o5 0 6ommerce4 Rhttp:SSwww.g,wf.,omSarti,&esS9o+rna&S9i&Vde,CFV2.htm&U(As /isited on ')S)2S)E). -4. 3i&&iam S. !a&5in4 &eac! o5 Internet complcates +ursdcton ssues4 Rhttp:SSwashington.1,entra&.,omSwashingtonSstoriesS'CCES)(S'CSfo,+s').htm&U(As /isited on ')S)2S)E). -6. Cind0 Chen4 Comment4 Hnted States and 0uropean Hnon ;pproac!es to Internet +ursdcton and T!er Impact on 06ommerce4 2( . PA. J. *NT7L ECON. L. @2< (2))@). -3. A&&an R. Stein4 /ersonal +ursdcton and t!e InternetA Seeng Due /rocess T!roug! t!e Lens o5 &egulatory /recson4 CF N3. . L. REJ. @''4 @<2 (2))@) -5. Thomas P. Jartanian4 ; H.S. /erspectve on t!e )lo#al +ursdctonal 6!ec*ponts n 6y#erspace ('CCC)4 a/ai&a1&e at http:SSwww.i&pf.orgSe/entsS9+risdi,tionSpresentationsS /artanianpr.htm (&ast /isited on ''S)2S)E) -@. J+stin $+ghes4 T!e Internet and t!e /ersstence o5 La(4 @@ #.C. L. Re/. <(C (2))<). .A. Timoth0 P. Lester4 )lo#al'ed ;utomatc 6!oce o5 3orumA "!ere Do Internet 6onsumers SueG /roposed ;rtcle , o5 t!e Hague 6onventon on Internatonal +ursdcton and 3oregn +udgments n 6vl and 6ommercal Matters and Its /oss#le 055ects on e16ommerce4 C New Eng. J. *nt7& H Comp. L. @<' (2))<). .-. Stephen #. #+r1an54 +ursdctonal 0Iul#raton4 t!e /roposed Hague 6onventon and /rogress n Natonal La(4 @C Am J. Comp. L. 2)< (2))'). ... Erin Ann O7$ara4 6!oce o5 La( 5or Internet TransactonsA T!e Hneasy 6ase 5or @nlne 6onsumer /rotecton4 '(< . PA. L. REJ. 'FF<4 'C)F H n.F( (2))(). ./. Pa+& S,hiff #erman4 To(ards a 6osmopoltan Json o5 6on5lct o5 La(sA &ede5nng )overnmental Interests n a )lo#al 0ra4 '(< . PA. L. Re/. 'F'C4 'F<@ (2))(). 2@