Gucci America discovered that Wang Huoqing, a man living in China, was running multiple websites selling counterfeit Gucci products. Huoqing was selling intellectual property that was protected in Gucci’s registered trademarks without permission. Gucci decided to hire a private investigator to order counterfeit Gucci merchandise from Huoqing’s sites. Once the investigator received the merchandise at his address in California, Gucci filed a lawsuit against Huoqing for copyright infringement in a federal district court in California. Huoqing was notified of the lawsuit in an email. However, he never appeared in court, so Gucci asked the court to make a default judgment. In turn, the court needed to decide whether it had the personal jurisdiction over the case involving Huoqing since he lived in China and his only contact with the United States was through sales over the Internet. The court decided that it would have jurisdiction over a person who had sufficient minimum contact with residents within the state. Courts have to apply a three-prong test to decide whether someone has had sufficient minimum contact with their forum: 

(1) Did Huoqing purposefully direct his activities and transactions with the forum or resident thereof or engage in an act whereby he was purposefully benefited by engaging in the activities in the forum, subsequently receiving the benefits and protections of its laws? 

(2) Did the lawsuit claim relate to Huoqing’s forumrelated activities? 

(3) If the court exercised jurisdiction, would doing so be reasonable?