buy goods from the websites. The investigator purchased a wallet that was labeled Gucci but was counterfeit. Gucci led a trademark infringement lawsuit against Huoqing in a federal district court in California seeking damages and an injunction to prevent further infringement. Huoqing was notified of the lawsuit via email but did not appear in court. Gucci asked the court to enter a default judgmentithat is, a judgment entered when the defendant fails to appear. The court first had to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction over Huoqing based on the Internet sales. In the Words of the Court Joseph C. SPERO, United States Magistrate judge. amazon: * * * Under California's long-arm statute, federal courts in California may exercise jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The Due Process Clause allows federal courts to exercise jurisdiction where * * * the defendant has had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to subject him or her to the specific jurisdiction of the court. The courts apply a three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists: The courts apply a three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists: [1] The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; [2] the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and [3] exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. In order to satisfy the first prong of the test for specific jurisdiction, a defendant must have either purposefully availed itself of [taken advantage of] the privilege of conducting business activities within the forum or purposefully directed activities toward the forum. Purposeful' avaiiment typicaiiy consists of action taking place in the forum that invokes the benets and protections of the laws of the forum, such as executing or performing a contract within the forum. To show purposeful availment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant "engage [d] in some form of affirmative conduct allowing or promoting the transaction of business within the forum state.\" [Emphasis added.] \"In the Internet context, the Ninth Circuit utilizes a sliding scale analysis under which 'passive' websites do not create sufficient contacts to establish purposeful availment, whereas interactive websites may create sufficient contacts, depending on how interactive the website is.\" * * * Personal jurisdiction is where an entity is conducting business over the Internet and has oferedforsale and sold its products to forum [Caliarnia] residents. [Emphasis added] Here, the allegations and evidence presented by Plaintiffs in support of the Motion are sufficient to show purposeful availment on the part of Defendant Wang Huoqing. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant operates "fully interactive Internet websites operating under the Subject Domain Names" and have presented evidence in the form of copies of web pages showing that the websites are, in fact, interactive. * * * Additionally, Plaintiffs allege Defendant is conducting counterfeiting and infringing activities within this Judicial District and has advertised and sold his counterfeit goods in the State of California. * * * Plaintiffs have also presented evidence of one actual sale within this district, made by investigator Robert Holmes from the website bag2do.cn. * * * Finally, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that Defendant Wang Huoqing owns or controls the twenty-eight websites listed in the Motion for Default Judgment. * * * Such commercial activity in the forum amounts to purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have also presented evidence of one actual sale within this district, made by investigator Robert Holmes from the website bag2do.cn. * * * Finally, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that Defendant Wang Huoqing owns or controls the twenty-eight websites listed in the Motion for Default Judgment. * * * Such commercial activity in the forum amounts to purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant's contacts with California are sufficient to show purposeful availment. Decision and Remedy The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that it had personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant, Wang Huoqing. The court entered a default judgment against Wang Huoqing and granted Gucci an injunction.Spotlight on Gucci: Case 2.1 Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang Huoqing United States District Court, Northern District of California, 2011 WL 30972 (2011). Gucci luxury leather products are often counterfeited. Can Gucci sue an Asian company in the United States for selling counterfeit goods? GUCCI narvikk/iStock Unreleased/ Getty Images narvikk/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images Background and Facts Wang Huoqing, a resident of the People's Republic of China, operated numerous websites. When Gucci discovered that Huoqing's websites were selling counterfeit goods-products that carried Gucci's trademarks but were not genuine Gucci articles-it hired a private investigator in San Jose, California, to buy goods from the websites. The investigator purchased a wallet that was labeled Gucci but wasl Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement