that the infringing products were sold in the state; injury to good will or reputation, dilution of the value of the trademark, and damages from expected lost profits did not establish personal jurisdiction in the forum state).
Defendant does not come within the reach of the tortious act clause of the Illinois long-arm statute because the present cause of action does not arise from a tortious act committed in Illinois. Plaintiff complains of defendant's trade dress on its drinkable, fruit-flavored kefir product. Defendant presented an affidavit stating that it has never sold such products in Illinois and has never sold such products with the knowledge or intent that they would be distributed in Illinois. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that defendant's drinkable, fruit-flavored kefir product was sold in Illinois. Plaintiff presented evidence only that defendant's Slender Cow product was purchased in Illinois, but plaintiff does not complain of the trade dress of the Slender Cow product. Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that it suffered damage in Illinois. Although plaintiff has alleged lost sales, that is, damage to its pocketbook, this economic injury does not, in and of itself, support jurisdiction. See Turnock, 816 F.2d at 335.
Nor can this court exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant under the "doing business" clause of the Illinois long-arm statute. A corporation is doing business in Illinois if it regularly conducts activities in the state and operates with a "'fair measure of permanence and continuity.'" Michael J. Neuman & Assoc., Ltd. v. Florabelle Flowers, Inc., 15 F.3d 721, 724 (7th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff has not shown that defendant's activities constitute "doing business" in Illinois.
To establish jurisdiction under the catch-all clause of the Illinois long-arm statute, jurisdiction must comply with the due process principles of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Illinois constitution. Where a cause of action does not arise out of the corporation's activities in the forum state, "due process is not offended by a state's subjecting the corporation to its in personam jurisdiction when there are sufficient contacts between the State and the foreign corporation." Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404, 104 S. Ct. 1868 (1984), citing Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 96 L. Ed. 485, 72 S. Ct. 413 (1952). When a court exercises jurisdiction over a defendant "in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum," the court is exercising general jurisdiction. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 415 n. 9; Wilson v. Humphreys (Cayman) Ltd., 916 F.2d 1239, 1245 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 947, 113 L. Ed. 2d 468, 111 S. Ct. 1415 (1991).
General jurisdiction requires evidence of continuous and systematic general business contacts of the corporation in the forum. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416; Dehmlow v. Austin Fireworks, 963 F.2d 941, 948 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1992); Wilson, 916 F.2d at 1245. "Continuous and systematic" is a "'fairly high standard in practice.'" Wilson, 916 F.2d at 1245 (quoting Fields v. Sedgwick Associated Risks, Ltd., 796 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir. 1986)). In Perkins, the Supreme Court found systematic and continuous contacts sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation where the president of the corporation maintained an office in the forum and conducted business on behalf of the company, kept company files in the forum, held directors' meetings in the forum, and held bank accounts in the forum. 342 U.S. at 447-48. In Helicopteros, the Court found that general jurisdiction was not established where the activities of the corporation included one business trip to the state, purchases of helicopters and equipment from the state, and training received in the state by corporate employees. 466 U.S. at 416-18.
Defendant's contacts with Illinois do not establish general jurisdiction. Defendant does not maintain an office in Illinois and does not carry on general business activities in the state. It does not sell its products directly to Illinois customers. Thus, bringing defendant into this court would not comport with due process.
Plaintiff argues that defendant is subject to jurisdiction in Illinois because defendant enjoys economic benefits from the sale of its products in Illinois. Plaintiff's argument assumes that the cause of action arises out of the defendant's contacts with the state. All the cases upon which plaintiff relies address jurisdiction where the causes of action arose out of the defendant's contacts with the forum. See, e.g., Dehmlow, 963 F.2d 941; Giotis v. Apollo of the Ozarks, Inc., 800 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1092, 94 L. Ed. 2d 158, 107 S. Ct. 1303 (1987); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985).
Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that this court may exercise personal jurisdiction under any part of the Illinois long-arm statute, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
Entered: October 3, 1996
Robert W. Gettleman
United States District Judge
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Decision by Court. This action came to a hearing before the Court. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that because plaintiff has not demonstrated that this court may exercise personal jurisdiction under any part of the Illinois longarm statute, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
October 3, 1996