United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
Standard Process, Inc., manufactures nutritional supplements
and sells them exclusively through authorized resellers. It
has filed suit against defendant KDealz Ltd. Co. for
trademark infringement and related claims. It alleges that
KDealz is selling Standard Process products online without
authorization. KDealz has moved to dismiss the suit for lack
of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. 9. Because Standard Process
has made a prima facie showing of specific personal
jurisdiction and because the exercise of jurisdiction does
not offend due process, the court will deny KDealz's
motion. The court will deny Standard Process's motion for
leave to file a surreply, Dkt. 19, as moot.
court draws the following facts from the parties'
evidentiary submissions and the allegations in Standard
Process's amended complaint. Dkt. 8.
Process is a Wisconsin corporation with a principal place of
business in Wisconsin. It makes nutritional supplements,
which it sells “exclusively through a network of
authorized resellers.” Id. ¶ 7.
is a limited liability company owned by Robert Cady. Cady
runs KDealz from his home in Kentucky. KDealz operates a
“storefront” on Amazon.com called “Organic
Melodies.” Dkt. 15, ¶ 7. Through this storefront,
KDealz sells nutritional supplements manufactured by Standard
Process, even though it is not an authorized reseller.
buys Standard Process products from third-party resellers
outside of Wisconsin. It then ships the Standard Process
products to Amazon fulfillment centers for storage. At least
one of the fulfillment centers is located in Wisconsin. When
a customer orders a Standard Process product through the
Organic Melodies storefront on Amazon's website, Amazon
packs and ships the product to the customer. Some of those
customers live in Wisconsin, and therefore, Amazon ships some
Standard Process products to Wisconsin. Amazon collects
payment from KDealz's customers, subtracts its fees, and
then remits the remainder to KDealz every two weeks.
October 9, 2017, counsel for Standard Process sent KDealz a
letter asking it to stop selling Standard Process products.
KDealz refused. On November 16, counsel for Standard Process
sent KDealz a second cease-and-desist letter. KDealz ignored
it and continued to sell Standard Process products.
December 4, Standard Process filed this suit against KDealz,
accusing KDealz of trademark infringement, false advertising,
unfair competition, trademark dilution, deceptive trade
practices, and tortious interference with contract and
business relations. The court has subject matter jurisdiction
over the federal-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It
may assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
moves to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
At this point in the case, Standard Process need only make a
prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.
Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A.,
338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, the court accepts
Standard Process's well-pleaded factual allegations as
true and considers the supporting evidence adduced by the
parties, resolving any factual disputes in Standard
Process's favor. Id.
a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction,
Standard Process must demonstrate that KDealz falls within
Wisconsin's long-arm statute, Wis.Stat. § 801.05,
which has been interpreted to confer “jurisdiction
‘to the fullest extent allowed under the due process
clause.'” Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d
665, 678 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Daniel J. Hartwig
Assocs., Inc. v. Kanner, 913 F.2d 1213, 1217 (7th Cir.
1990)). If Standard Process makes this showing, the court
turns to the constitutional inquiry. “Compliance with
the statute presumes that due process is met, ” but
KDealz, as the objecting defendant, has opportunity to rebut
that presumption. Kopke v. A. Hartrodt S.R.L., 2001
WI 99, ¶ 22, 245 Wis.2d 396, 629 N.W.2d 662.
Wisconsin's long-arm statute
Process contends that this court has personal jurisdiction
over defendants under section 801.05(4)(b), which allows for
specific jurisdiction when a plaintiff suffers an injury
within Wisconsin arising out of a defendant's
out-of-state act or omission-if the defendant's
“products, materials or things processed, serviced or
manufactured” were consumed in Wisconsin in the
ordinary course of trade. “Process” is construed
broadly and includes “purchasing and selling goods in
the ordinary course of ...