Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Last year, Plaintiff Cascade Yarns, Inc., brought suit against competing yarn manufacturer Filatura Pettinata V.V.G. Di Stefano Vaccari & C. (S.A.S.) and a number of other competitors.

It alleged that defendants conspired to produce, market, and sell mislabeled yarn to consumers in violation of the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. In particular, it claimed that defendants misrepresented the amount of cashmere, mohair, silk, alpaca, camel, or milk protein fiber in their yarns.

Filatura, an Italian company, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On June 17, the Western District granted Filatura’s motion.

“Because Cascade has alleged violations of RICO, jurisdiction over Filatura might be exercised under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b), which allows for nationwide service of process on a defendant as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(C), and hence jurisdiction in this Court. However, this Court has already found that RICO jurisdiction does not apply in this case. Moreover, Filatura was not served in the United States, which casts the RICO jurisdiction further into doubt. Thus Filatura must meet the constitutional criteria ordinarily required for personal jurisdiction in Washington.”

The court went on to find that Cascade did not make that showing because it did not show that Filatura shipped the yarns at issue directly to Washington; Filatura’s business dealings with Cascade did not establish purposeful availment of this forum; and that Filatura’s alleged conspiracy with other defendants subject to jurisdiction here was not sufficient.

The court summarized: “None of Cascade’s theories demonstrate that Filatura expressly aimed any intentional acts causing harm in Washington. Cascade therefore does not satisfy the effects test, and consequently has not made a showing of purposeful direction. A showing of purposeful direction is required to establish specific personal jurisdiction. Cascade has thus failed to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over Filatura.”

The order does not affect Cascade’s claims against the other defendants.

The case cite is Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc., 2011 WL 2470671, No. 10-861 (W.D. Wash. June 17, 2011) (Marintez, J.).