Ever wonder if you can get pulled into court in a foreign state or locale based on something that occurs through your company's website? 

Short answer: you can....sometimes.

But now I'm going to give you, my faithful readers, the opportunity to "make the call" on this issue.  What follows are real facts, from a real case that was just handed down by a federal court.  

You be the judge, and let me know (by commenting to this blog entry) whether, under the facts provided below, you would pull the "offending" website into a foreign court.  I'll reveal the actual ruling in a few days.... (UPDATE: Feb. 26, 2010: Answer revealed below)....

And now, the facts....

Eagle Coffee Company, a Maryland company, owns the trademark "EAGLE COFFEE", and has been using the trademark with regard to coffee products since 1921.

Along comes Eagle Coffee International, a coffee company located in New York, which (in 1983) starts using the mark, "EAGLE COFFEE".  Eagle (NY) also creates a website to market and sell its products at www.eaglecoffee.net.

Eagle (Maryland) discovers what's going on, and demands that Eagle (NY) stop using the mark. 

Eagle (NY) says "no way".

Eagle (Maryland) sues Eagle (NY) for trademark infringement, but launches the case in Maryland, not in New York.

Eagle (NY) says, "hey—you can't sue us in Maryland", and claims that it has no significant connections to Maryland.

Eagle (Maryland) says, "not true—you made seven Internet-based sales to customers in Maryland.  You also used the phrase 'please come again' in confirmatory emails following each Maryland-based purchase, implying that you want Maryland customers to visit your website."

You're the judge: how do you rule?  Does the NY company have to travel to Maryland, or do you dismiss the case?

ANSWER:  Eagle NY stays in NY; the case in Maryland is dismissed.

Why?  Because fairness still rules the day. 

Let's take a closer look at what Eagle (Maryland) was arguing.  They claimed that Eagle (NY) made seven sales to Maryland customers since 1983, which justified forcing Eagle (NY) to defend itself in Maryland.  Think hard about that: 7 sales in 27 years!!  Do the math. 

Does anyone really think that that Eagle (NY) should have been pulled into Maryland because the company made approximately 3.8 sales to Maryland customers every 7 years??  Lawyers would say, "such a notion fails to comport with traditional notions of fairness and justice. "  

I say, it's just plain ol' crazy talk. 

The court got it exactly right, and put it this way: "This Court is not satisfied that Eagle [NY] has established sufficient minimum contacts with Maryland such that [Eagle (Maryland)] would reasonably anticipate being haled into court here."

Hooray.  Fairness and justice triumphed over crazy talk. Yes folks, sometimes that actually happens.