3. In BE2 LLC v. IVANOV, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir.2011), an online dating service brought a trademark infringement action in Illinois against a New Jersey businessman, alleging defendant deliberately misled customers by using a domain name “confusingly similar” to

“be2.” Evidence that twenty Illinois residents had accessed defendant’s website was held insufficient to show that defendant had targeted the Illinois market or availed himself of the privilege of doing business in the state. To the contrary, the court explained,165“the 20 Chicagoans who created free profiles on be2.net may have done so unilaterally by stumbling across the website and clicking a button that automatically published their dating preferences online.” Id. at 559. If you represented plaintiff, where would you suggest that this lawsuit be filed and what evidence would you produce to show defendant’s purposeful availment? Would you rely on the Caldereffects test, p. 120, supra?