Plaintiff sued Defendants for violation of the Lanham Act, contending that they were "passing off" Plaintiff's products as their own. Defendants challenged venue, contending that the only possible statutory venue provision that might be applicable, 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), could not be satisfied. The provision authorizes venue in the district where "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred," which, in Lanham Act claims, has been interpreted to be the district where "confusion about the origin of the product is likely to occur." Plaintiff argued that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Michigan as to the Defendant-manufacturer because its computer web site -- which contained the alleged misrepresentations regarding the "passing off" of the product -- was accessible to any computer user in Michigan. The district court agreed. However, it transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida, because venue could not be established as to all Defendants in the Eastern District of Michigan.
IA Inc. v Thermacell Technologies, Inc., et al, Civ No 97-40146, ED Mich, 11/10/97, Gadola, J. (dkt #21 - 16 pages) This article was written by Mark A. Goldsmith, a partner in our Litigation Department, and previously appeared in the February 1998 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal.