Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW


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@

Похожие интересы