Garagesocial, Inc. v. The Hagerty group, LLC (D. Mass. 24-cv-13187).

Massachusetts-based Garagesocial, a social networking site for car enthusiasts, accused Michigan-based businesses The Hagerty Group and Member Hubs Holdings of infringing its federally-registered GARAGESOCIAL trademark.  Hagerty, an insurance company, is accused of owning and operating the website www.garageandsocial.com and of having registered HAGERTY GARAGE + SOCIAL in connection with services related to the automotive industry.  Garagesocial brought claims of federal and common law trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition.

Hagerty and Member Hubs moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Judge Murphy (from my Alma Mater Holy Cross) noted that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to offer evidence sufficient to support findings of facts essential to personal jurisdiction without relying on unsupported allegations.  Looking to the Commonwealth’s long-arm statute, which (in the parts relied upon by Garagesocial) require the defendants either caused tortious injury by acts or omissions in Massachusetts or causing tortious injury in Massachusetts where the acts were performed out of state but the defendants regularly did business or derived substantial revenue from the state.  He rejected Garagesocial’s argument that activity outside of Massachusetts suffices if the injury is felt in the state where there were no allegations that the defendants had regularly done business in the state, noting that “the fact that any economic harm is felt by the Plaintiff in Massachusetts does not mean that the infringement occurred here.”  As no actual facts were alleged to show that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business activities in Massachusetts, Judge Murphy dismissed the complaint.