(S.D.N.Y. 1980) (knowingly sending a false statement); American Edelstaal, Inc. v. Maier, 460 F. Supp. 613, 620 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (sending solicitations).
Taurus claims, however, that the basis for assertion of personal jurisdiction is more expansive in trademark infringement cases. For authority, Taurus relies primarily on three cases decided by this Court. Transamerica Corp. v. Transfer Planning, Inc., 419 F. Supp. 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Honda Associates, Inc. v. Nozawa Trading, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 886 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 133 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1955), aff'd by 234 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1956). In these cases, this Court stated that "in cases of trademark infringement . . . the wrong takes place . . . where the passing off occurs." Transamerica, 419 F. Supp. at 1262, citing Vanity Fair Mills, 234 F.2d at 639. See also Honda Associates, 374 F. Supp. at 888. Thus, Taurus claims that personal jurisdiction is established under CPLR § 302(a)(2) since the infringing logo was disseminated in this district, i.e., a tort was committed in this district.
All three cases relied on by Taurus, however, involved solicitations. In Honda, jurisdiction was established by defendant's mailings into New York of catalogs containing the infringing trademark for mail order sales. Likewise, Transamerica concerned a direct mailing campaign with brochures containing the infringing symbols soliciting business. In Vanity Fair, the Court of Appeals stated that the tortious act occurs "where the deceived customer buys the defendant's product in the belief that he is buying the plaintiff's." 234 F.2d at 639. Similarly, this Court in Transamerica, 419 F. Supp. at 1262-3, stated that " . . . mail order operations into New York fall within the 'plain and precise' meaning of CPLR 302(a)(2), which requires . . . only that the plaintiff suffer some damage as a result of a tortious act committed by defendant or its agent in New York" (quoting Honda, 374 F. Supp. at 889). Taurus also relies on QRM Publishing Company Inc. v. Reed, 230 U.S.P.Q. 217, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), in which this Court stated that "it is established law in this Circuit that the offering for sale within New York of allegedly infringing products confers jurisdiction upon this Court under § 302(a)(2)."
Titan Wheel's mailing of its Third Quarter Report was not intended to derive business or profits. Taurus is relying on decisions involving solicitations which are designed to sell goods or services. These mailings are not comparable to the distribution of a quarterly report to shareholders. Moreover, in both Transamerica and Honda this Court, upon finding that jurisdiction was proper in this forum, proceeded to transfer both cases "in the interests of justice" to a venue in which the case originally could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Honda Associates, Inc. v. Nozawa Trading, Inc., 374 F. Supp. at 892; Transamerica Corp. v. Transfer Planning, Inc., 419 F. Supp. at 1263.
Finally, the Court notes that since neither defendant maintains an office, conducts business, advertises, offers for sale, delivers or sells any product in New York State, neither has availed itself of the benefits of this forum, has sufficient contacts with it, or should reasonably be expected to defend its actions here. Permitting otherwise would violate due process. See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-223, 2 L. Ed. 2d 223, 78 S. Ct. 199 (1957); see also, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559 (1980); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 90 L. Ed. 95, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945).
Given Taurus' failure to establish that the Court has jurisdiction over defendants, the Court need not address defendants' other motions.
Accordingly, defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction is hereby granted.
Shira A. Scheindlin