Re: lawsuit

Agree.  Once the full text of the Judge's order became available, the
rationale you stated became clear.

-- 
Bob Alston

bobalston9   AT  aol  DOT  com
"Jim Seidman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Dave Engle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > It looks to me like Robert H's motion to dismiss was the only one not
> > granted.  Anyone know why that might be?
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but here's my interpretation of what the judge said.
>
> Basically, the motions to dismiss were based on issues of personal
> jurisdiction. The court in New York doesn't have the right to try a
> case against people who don't live there, conduct business there,
> visit there, etc. Even if someone does have a connection to New York,
> it has to have some relation to the legal case for the court to exert
> jurisdiction.
>
> In Robert H's case, the judge decided that the Aqua Botanic website
> was interactive enough to consitute doing business in New York, since
> New York residents may use it. Given that one of Novak's complaints
> related specifically to the use of his trademark on the website, that
> provided enough of a link for the court to assert jurisdiction.
>
> For everyone else, the link between the defendants and New York was
> too tenuous. The websites belonging to other defendants were not
> interactive (in the sense of hosting a forum or selling product) and
> thus didn't trigger jurisdiction.
>
> - Jim