Internet personal jurisdiction in civil litigation

Internet Personal Jurisdiction

Normally, when the belongings are attached to a state, the courts are given authority over any assets actually present within the regional limits of the state and courts are also given authority on anyone provided with procedure while present actually within the region of that state. Checking of procedure and attachments are official methods for declaring personal authority over people or belongings and it also helps in the purpose of giving constitutionally essential notice of the pendency of a judicial happening that may end up in the withdrawal of property. Whether a person within the personal authority wants to contribute or not does not make any change. The supremacy is coercive. Likewise, if the possessor of the interests in property who is subjected to personal jurisdiction wants to take part or not also makes no difference. The control over the assets is coercive. The main task is to decode these personal jurisdiction notions in to less coercive system of case verdict institutions in cyberspace. With the growth of Internet, the courts have also started the usage of suitable conventional values of jurisdictional law to its related topics, shaped by the Internet. The courts have started to make a decision as to when the Internet can make personal jurisdiction.

The courts investigating the jurisdictional laws have conventionally not concentrated on the working of Internet infrastructure, but have selected a higher level of examining. For instance, the use of e-mail and that of regular mail for business transaction were treated almost alike by the courts. The courts have mainly overlooked as to how the information is transferred and how the contact is through the World Wide Web. Some of the courts have analogized the connections with a website to place a product in the flow of business. Some others refer the website for the newspaper, the website circulating the newspaper contents to the entire Internet world. But actually, web site connection is not products. Actually, the user should send a request first to the website for information. Then only the website will send the person, who requested, a copy of information or text. This functionality is applicable to the focused availment analysis. Is the information of the laws of the other states available to the Internet world just by easily placing a request to the web site owner? The answer to this question would be no in most states, though there have been disputes in the court. One line of cases says that an informational Internet site on the web can make jurisdiction in another state. A second line of cases has taken a descending move towards examining each and every sites viable nature and interactivity level. The second line becomes the mainstream rule. But before examining the Internet cases, it is necessary to analyze the outline upon which they have agreed the conventional bases for personal jurisdiction. (Cendali and Arbogast, 1996)

There is a two-step analysis in the examining of the existence of personal jurisdiction: 1) whether the forum states extended decree authorizes the affirmation of jurisdiction and 2) the affirmation of personal jurisdiction breaches the federal due process. In the states where the extended decree is extended to the limits of due process then this two step process is reduced to only one query: is the jurisdiction constitutionally allowed. The extended decree was the main point by which some of the top and most often quoted Internet cases were decided under the two-part analysis. These cases may provide more uncertain precedential value in the jurisdiction because many states have more limited extended decree than others. But the real base of the Second Circuit's holdings that jurisdiction cannot be affirmed was grounded in New York's extended decree, which is jurisdictionally more limiting than most state extended decrees. It is essential not only to study the nature of the Internet contacts and the interactivity of the website, but also the state law jurisdictional outline within which the previous cases were determined, before studying Internet jurisdiction verdict for the precedential value in the court case. (Bauman, 1997)

It is necessary to differentiate between the notions of common jurisdiction and exact jurisdiction, in addition to examining the scope of the states extended decree. Common jurisdiction is apt when a non-resident defendant's distinct contacts are orderly and constant with the form state. It is fine to utter that it takes a very high range of achievements within the forum, when the court has not set a clear norms for the grade and kind of contacts needed for initiating common jurisdiction. Common jurisdiction allows the court to use personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, in spite of whether the action has any links with the forum state. When a defendant has constant and regular contact with the forum state then normally the common jurisdiction is evoked. When the defendant has a contact with forum state then exact jurisdiction is evoked. When the link between the defendants, the basis for the suit and the forum is within the least contact outline, then exact jurisdiction ensues, as first proclaimed in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its descendants.

As per International Shoe, a court could implement jurisdiction over a defendant, even if the defendant is not actually present in the state and as long as the defendant has made some minimum contacts with the state. If a non-resident defendant benefits form the defense of laws of that state, the court enunciated that such defendants could also be obliged to secure a case in the forum. But such a case must come from or be linked to the defendant's actions within the state. The court narrowed down this use of personal jurisdiction to cases of adequate minimum contacts where protection of such a case would not upset the conventional ideas of justice and impartiality. (Bales and Van Wert, 2001)

Internet jurisdiction cases that have been determined are mainly exact jurisdiction cases. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment confines the influence of a state court to apply personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. The constitutional criterion of the purpose whether the use of personal jurisdiction comports with due process rests on whether the defendant persistently established least contacts in the forum state. Burger Kin Corp.v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,474 (1985) quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. At 316. Least contacts must have a base in some activities by which the defendant persistently avails the favor of carrying out actions. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). Volitional acts is defined as the one by which the defendant persistently avails the favor of carrying out the actions within the forum state by appealing to the profits and security of its laws, as given in Hanson v. Denckla. One of the problems met by the courts is what proceedings are to be taken on a website owner who makes up persistent availment, and this has ended up in contradictory results. In examining the persistent availment query, many courts confronting with Internet jurisdiction matters have used the way of business analysis or the effects doctrine, which are the two conventional jurisdictional theories. (Byassee, 1995)

The courts analogize the spread of information through an Internet website to the position of a product in the course of business, interpreting that the website owner created the website for viewing the Internet with a trust and hope that people using the Internet will view the site to get their required information, which was studied under the course of business analysis e.g., Smith v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 968 F.Supp. 1356, 1362-65 (1997); Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F.Supp. 295, 301. A suit was flashed by King's World Wide Web site, which publicized his Columbis, Missourie Blue Note jazz club on the World Wide Web, which is given in Bensusan Restaurant Corporation.v.King. Bensusan had the brand mane of The Blue Note and was making business as a popular Jazz club in Greenwich Village. Ben Susan took legal action against King for the brand name intrusion and allied reasons of activities in Federal District Court in New York. Due to a lack of personal jurisdiction in New York, King moved the case to reject the legal action.

The court approved that there was no personal jurisdiction. It declared the subject as the formation of website, which exists in Missouri, or in cyberspace i.e., anywhere in the world, the Internet can exist with a telephone number to order the evidently infringing product, it is also an offer to sell in New York. The court noted that King was not getting sizeable income from interstate business. It saw that Bensusan's claim that King should have anticipated that people from New York will use the website and be puzzled to be unsatisfactory. The court particularly directed the due process concerns, finding that King did not persistently avail himself of the profit of New York. King like many others created a website and allowed anybody who found contact in to it. Creating a website is like ordering a product in the course of business and it can be world wide or nationwide but it has no action persistently aimed at the forum state. (Bender, 1997).

The most important United States Supreme Court case arguing the course of business theory of personal jurisdiction is Asahi Metal Industry Co.v.480. U.S.102 (1987). The Supreme Court was estranged over whether the position of a product in the course of business is enough to grant personal jurisdiction. The plurality led by Justice O'Connor, gave a more limiting outlook of jurisdiction, holding that the positioning of a product in to the course of business without more, is not an act of defendant persistently aimed at the forum state Id. At 112 (emphasis added). The court also stated that a defendants knowledge that the course of business may and will sweep the product in to the forum state does not alter the sheer act of positioning the product in to the business, is not an act persistently aimed towards the forum state Id.

The courts making use of these principles in Internet jurisdiction cases have caught upon the idiom, without much to need, something more than the mere making of an Internet website to ascertain personal jurisdiction. Cyber sell. Inc.v.Cybersell.Inc.130F.3d 414(9th cir.1997) provides instances of having a toll-free phone number, agreeing in to a deal with the forum and seeking products in the forum. The solution to the jurisdiction is the aim of the defendants and not the behavior of the internet users, as per the most recent laws which even goes further as to necessitate some sort of planned action on the part of the defendant aimed at the forum state in order to ascertain jurisdiction. (Ballon, 2000)

The course of business does not refer to the random waves or eddies, but to the usual and probable flow of products from production to delivery and to retail sale. This was given by Justice Brennas who was contending the study in Asahi Metal Industry and who was more logical and influential. The risks of a court case cannot be a blow to a person as long as he is familiar that the final product is marketed in the forum state 480 U.S. At 117. The previous Internet jurisdiction cases used this type of logic, holding that anyone who places a website should expect to be haled into the court in any forum, where that website can be contacted effectively any where in the world. See example Inset systems v. Instruction set, infra. The effects doctrine is usually practiced in tort actions and aims on the level to which the defendants act is meant or has effect in the forum state. It permits the petitioner to show persistent availment by confirming the defendant aimed deliberate actions at the forum state that cause damage, the impact of which is undergone by the forum state.

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1994) is the famous U.S. Supreme Court case in this field. A case in a California court about a magazine reporter and editor (who were residents of Florida) was an evidently offensive article they had written about a resident of California, in the national periodical, but there the court found that the jurisdiction was well defended. The court stressed that the defendants were charged with deliberate acts specifically aimed at California Id.at 789-90, because the defendants knew that California would be the central point of the story, the defendant's deliberate acts will lead to destruction and this jurisdiction was correct. (Betensky, 1998)

Regarding Internet jurisdiction there are only very few opinions that has been given by the federal court of appeals. There is an important case of Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F. 3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998). This is a leading decision on Internet jurisdiction using the effects doctrine. There was a person, nonresident in the U.S. who had registered Panavision's established trademeark as the domain name for his web site. He then tried to sell the rights to the domain name to the company, Panavision. The Ninth Circuit decided that it had jurisdiction over this person. The person concerned argued that the forum state and he had no contacts, nor was any of his activities directed to the forum state. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with his arguments on the basis of the effects test. It found that the person had planned to register the trademark of Panavision as his own domain name with the specific objective of extorting money out of Panavision. The company, Panavision had the principal place of business in California. The person's action would be injuring the company in its business. Id.at 1322. After this case was decided, this principle of effects doctrine has been used as the basis in Internet cases for jurisdiction purposes. On the side of the courts, they have generally tried to restrict this doctrine only to cases where there is proof of intentional tort. This is seen in the cases of Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 45 F.Supp.2d 777, 782 (N.D.Cal 1998) and Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.,supra. In both these cases the courts did not accept the application of the doctrine, as the claims were for trademark infringement. (American Bar Association, 2000)

The dispute over personal jurisdiction and the World Wide Web was first discussed and decided in the case of Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F.Supp. 161 (D.Conn. 1996). This case was also probably the most jurisdictionally expansive case on the subject. It is said that this case has fixed the outer limits on the issue of personal jurisdiction regarding the internet. Another case was Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1125 (W.D.Pa. 1997). In the case of InsetSystems, the company of the same name was a Connecticut corporation for developing and marketing of consumer software and connected services throughout the world. It registered the federal trademark of "Inset" in 1986. In 1995, it tried to obtain the registration of Inset as a domain name. It then found that this name had been registered by Instruction Set, Inc. The second company was a Massachusetts corporation which was providing computer technology and other services worldwide. The second company had already obtained the domain name. Inset Systems, 937 F.Supp. At 165.

On this basis, the first company sued the second company for trademark infringement in Connecticut federal court. The second company had no employees in that place, or offices, or even conducted business regularly there. For the federal court to establish jurisdiction on the matter, the first company sited the second companies Internet Web site. This had advertising and a toll free telephone number. The first company argued that the Web site was providing enough contacts for the federal court to satisfy itself regarding due process. The court accepted the argument. The second company was concentrating on its advertising through the Internet. The telephone number was not for any particular state, but for all states within the country. Both these methods were for communications with the concerned people and their businesses in all states. It was said that as high as 10,000 users within Connecticut alone could be reached by Internet. It was also a very effective medium as it continues to be available continuously on the Internet, once posted, unlike the advertising on TV or radio. (Cendali and Weinstein, 1998)

Though the second company had not specifically targeted its Web site to the forum state, the court opined that it had wontedly availed itself of the advantage of getting business within Connecticut by using its Web site. This decision of the court has not been accepted by many other courts and legal commentators. There was a recent opinion that the court had not found enough facts to justify that the second company had wontedly availed facilities in Connecticut in any way different from any other area of the country. If the logic of the case was to be followed, then any company which posted information on the Web would become subject to nationwide jurisdiction. This is felt to be a very expansive approach to personal jurisdiction, and may be in excess of the constitution. This was seen in Rannoch, Inc. v. Rannoch Corp., 52 F. Supp.2d 681 (E.D.Va. 1999). Here it was felt that creating a Web site, or launching a new product into the market, even this activity may be nationwide or even worldwide, should not be viewed as a specific activity to the specific state. It has also been felt that this case would subject anybody posting information on the World Wide Web to countrywide jurisdiction. Barrett v. Catacombs Press, 44 F.Supp.2d 717, 727 (E.D.Pa. 1999)

Some cases have followed the logic of this case. One of these cases is Telco Communications v. An Apple A Day, 977 F.Supp. 404 (E.D.Va. 1997). This was decided by a court in Virginia which found the personal jurisdiction to be correct for defamation and torturous interference action. In this case, the court even looked at non-Internet contacts that had been developed by the defense within the concerned state, but the decision of the court was based on the Inset Systems case. The court specifically stated that it agreed with the concept of Internet sites and information presented in that case. Inset Systems. Id. At 406. There have been differences due to the traditional purposeful availment concept, and the courts have now started separating the Web sites of different types into categories.

This first happened in a case, Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997). This was regarding trademark infringement or false designation. The Zippo tobacco lighters manufacturing company sued the other company, which was a news service company using domain names like zippo.com, zippo.net and zipponews.com. To decide whether the court had proper jurisdiction, it started a sliding scale approach. It established three categories: (1) doing business over the Internet, (2) passive Web sites, and (3) interactive Web sites. The Fifth Circuit has adopted this approach in Mink v. AAAA Development, LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999), the Tenth Circuit in Soma Medical Int'l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 1999), apart from several district courts.

In some cases, the accused is clearly conducting business on the Internet with the residents of the state in question. This makes the assertion of personal jurisdiction in these cases easy. If there are contracts between the defendant and the residents of the involved state, consisting of the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, then there is a clear case for personal jurisdiction. Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F.Supp. At 1124 case has the company doing business over the Internet according to its own statement. The defendant was Zippo Dot Com had a website with information about the company, its own advertisements and the forms for applying for Internet news. The service of news was at three levels of membership - public or free membership, original and super. The gradations were based on the number of newsgroups that the service offered access to. Customers interested in the higher levels of service like original or super had to fill out an online application form. This form would contain the customer's address and name. The payment could be made by the customer with a credit card either through the Internet or telephone. Then this application had to be processed and payment received. After this, a password was to be given to the customer. This password permitted the customer to see and also download the Internet newsgroup messages that had been stored on the company's server in California. Dot Com had contacts with its customers in Pennsylvania almost totally over the Internet. The company had its offices, employees and Internet servers only in California. It had no offices, employees or even agents in Pennsylvania.

Their advertising in Pennsylvania was only the information over the website to the residents. They had 140,000 paying customers and only 2% of them were located in Pennsylvania, or roughly about 3,000. These residents had all subscribed to the service through the completion of online Internet application. Dot Com had then made agreements with seven Internet access providers in Pennsylvania. These access providers then permitted the subscribers to reach the company's news service. Out of the seven, two were situated in Western District of Pennsylvania. (Betensky, 1998)

As mentioned earlier, the court had set up a three category classification of Internet activity for the analysis of personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania for this case. The first of these was applicable for defendants who did business over the Internet through contracts with residents in other jurisdictions. This normally involved the knowledge and transmission of computer files over the Internet repeatedly. The court concerned with this Zippo case studied the facts that were placed before it and found out that there was proper jurisdiction. The second category was the passive websites which do not take any direct role in the transaction by the websites - they just pass on information to those who are interested. These passive websites can be reached by the Internet browsers, but there are no direct contacts between the organization hosting the website and the visitor who comes to the site. This type of websites are not conducting any business, or offering goods for sale, or permit the visitors to order any merchandise from the site, or any services, or even files.

The purpose of passive websites is only to provide information to all visitors. The court felt that these passive websites do not provide enough reasons for the use of personal jurisdiction. These are the two extreme cases, and the websites in between can be called interactive. These sites permit the users of the sites to exchange information with the computer in which the site is stored. Some of these sites also modify the information to suit the requirements of the user as informed by him. The court's view for interactive websites regarding the question of jurisdiction was that it depended on the level of interactivity as also the commercial aspect of the information that was exchanged through the Web. (Cooper, 1997)

As mentioned earlier, the accused Zippo Dot Com had been involved through the sales of passwords to 3,000 residents of the concerned state so that the users could reach its online news service. To enable the user reach this service, they had also entered into agreements with seven Internet access providers within the state. The stated aim of this exercise was to enable the residents download the electronic messages, and this was the reason why the suit was started. Id at 1125 Quite different from this is the situation where the defendant has just posted some information on a Web site, and the site can be reached by visitors to people within the state as also outside. This is almost at the opposite end. This is a passive Web site and just makes information available to those who want it. This has been viewed as not enough ground for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Zippo, 952 F. Supp. At 1124. The cases on Web sites in this category are almost all for infringement of copyrights and trademarks due to the effect of the World Wide Web as an important method of sending information.

In one case of CompuServe v. Patterson (1996), there was a reversal of the decision of the Federal District by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. They found that there were enough contacts for the court to assert jurisdiction. Patterson had existing contracts with CompuServe to ensure that they were to be governed by Ohio law. Then Patterson had started doing business in Ohio by just transferring the software onto the systems of CompuServe which were located in Ohio. The court's ruling specifically mentioned that jurisdiction was found because there was a contract signed by Patterson and CompuServe in Ohio, and Patterson had also put his items of sale in the streams of commerce in Ohio. The concerned reference is Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. V. Superior Court, 1987 where it was stated that putting products into streams of commerce alone is not enough for minimum contacts.

Regarding passive web site cases, there is an important case called Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., supra. Here there was an Arizona corporation that was using the service mark of Cybersell to advertise commercial services over the Internet. There was also a Florida corporation that was using the name of Cybersell on its Web site for its Web page construction services over the Internet. The first company brought an infringement action. The rule that something more than just publishing an Internet home page is essential for the establishment of the case against a defendant that it wontedly directed the activities to the concerned state whose jurisdiction the case falls in. This principle was established by this case. This feature of extra requirement seen in the Cybersell case was seen in the majority view of the case of Asahi metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court. There, as discussed earlier, was a split in the United States Supreme Court over the correct application of the streams of commerce theory. The conduct of Cybersell of Florida did not make enough of a commercial impact to prove personal jurisdiction. The company had just posted a passive home page on the World Wide Web under its own company name. This was not enough of a commercial activity. The only participation of the Web page was to receive the browser's name and address as also indicated interest. Cybersell, 130 F. 3d at 419. The users did not have a choice of signing up for service on the Web site.

The Ninth Circuit clearly discussed the interaction activities of the Cybersell, Florida Web page. They also pointed out very clearly that the Cybersell, Florida company had not made any specific efforts at merchandising efforts to the residents of Arizona. They also mentioned that the company did not do anything to encourage the residents of Arizona to approach its site. There was also no proof shown that the company was conducting any part of its business in the state of Arizona. The only recorded visits from Arizona to the Web site of Cybersell, Florida were made by the company Cybersell, Arizona. This made the court come out with the judgment that there no personal jurisdiction and deliberate availment. Id. At 419-420

Many other cases present similar facts when analyzed. Regarding the cases concerning trademarks, the question of interactivity is very important. Another very important question is of fairness. The law does not hold that merely maintaining a Web site confers personal jurisdiction in all areas. If a view like that are accepted, then innocent business organizations in far away parts of the country could be made to appear in the forum state which had businesses with same sounding names. These types of businesses were not likely to be confused for each other before the World Wide Web came into existence. Often enough they may not have even been aware of the existence of each other. The web has made us all neighbors - just a mouse click away from each other. This has created a problem of intellectual property, at least in perceptual terms, and this did not exist before. When the two businesses concerned are really regional, there may not be any real confusion in between their products or services. This means that one will not have to go to the other end of the country to defend itself from court attacks on trademark infringements. This is even more unjust when there does not seem to be any chance of merit coming out on top in such cases. This has put the courts into a situation where they have to decide on the sites being passive Web site category. This helps the defendant to protect himself as there cannot be a case from the plaintiff with a passive Web site, as it will not be a basis for personal jurisdiction. (Flaming, 1997)

Among the two extremes are the situations where the defendant has an interactive Web site. This is the site where the user can exchange information with the computer storing the site. Zippo, 952 F. supp. At 1124 The definition of interactive sites almost ensures that all commercial Web sites will be judged to be interactive, and probably most of the existing sites also. This is probably be the middle ground and should be occupying the lion's share in terms of the court cases. However, it is difficult to judge the difference between an interactive Web site and a passive one. In some cases, the courts seem to be first deciding the case and then declaring the site to be passive to support their decision. This is also seen the case of Cybersell v. Cybersell, which has been discussed earlier. (Barkley, 2002) In that, the court had agreed that the meaning of an interactive Web site is that the users can exchange information with the host computer. 130 F. 3d at 418. Still, the court held that the Web site was passive. This is in contrast to the fact that the site permitted the visitor to exchange certain information with the computer. Id at 420. It has to be clearly determined whether there should be any jurisdiction in this uncertain ground of interactive Web sites. The required method is to review and analyze the level of interactions that are permitted, as also whether this interaction is of a commercial nature. Zippo, 952 F. Supp. At 1124 A high levels of interaction and commercial nature should also increase the likelihood of jurisdiction. Alternatively, the principle given by the Zippo court can be used. The nature and the quality of commercial activity that the business organization conducts over the Internet through its site may determine the likelihood of personal jurisdiction through the constitutional methods. Id An interactive Web site alone is found by some courts to be sufficient for establishing minimum contacts. Minimum contact through additional non-Internet activity in the forum state is required by others. This contact is also often not related to the basic claim. Still other courts feel that more conduct in the forum related to the cause of action given by the plaintiff must be obtained. Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F.Supp.2d 907 (D.Or. 1999) was a case that set up a standard for finding jurisdiction, and this was based on a commercial Web site. Here there were two retail music sellers with similar names - one was based in Oregon and the other in South Carolina. The Oregon party claimed trademark infringement and unfair competition against the South Carolina party in Oregon. It seems to be quite similar to the facts of the case discussed just above, but there was an important difference. The Web site of the defendant in this case was capable of transacting business over the net. You just required having access to the World Wide Web to get franchise information, or join a discount club, or purchase compact discs from the South Carolina party. Yet, the only resident of Oregon who purchased anything from the South Carolina party through the web site was an acquaintance of the counsel of the Oregon party.

There was a lot of discussion by the court on the case law of interactive web sites. At the end, it was decided by the Federal court that the capacity of selling compact discs over the Internet through the Web is a matter of doing business. (American bar Association. 2000) This would have been viewed by some courts as a matter of personal jurisdiction almost immediately. Here, the court did not find jurisdiction, but went back. It said that the matter of doing business over the Internet should be considered important only for those businesses that did a significant amount of their business in that manner. 33 F. Supp 2d at 920. The example of this type of business would be the contracts of foreign residents, and the transaction should involve knowing and repeated exchange of computer files through the Internet.

The above court judged that this particular case fell right in the middle of this category of interactive Web sites. It felt that there was no reason to simply find jurisdiction only due to the fact that there was an element of business done by the defendant over the Internet. Instead, it recommended that more enquiries should be conducted into the level of interactivity and the commercial aspects of the interaction over the Internet. This should be the basis whether jurisdiction should be exercised. Id Here it made an analysis regarding the middle ground of the jurisdiction of Internet cases. They found that the middle ground as defined in the earlier case of Zippo was apparently not enough. It specified an additional requirement for the award confirming the jurisdiction over the interactive Web site. (Allen, 2001) This was a requirement of planned action within the forum state. This action has to have transactions between the defendant and residents of the forum, or that the defendant to have deliberately directed action against the residents of the forum state. Millennium, 33 F. Supp 2d at 921. The court clearly said that the mere maintenance of an interactive Web site, which may be used by the residents in the forum state, is not enough. There must be more for jurisdiction to be granted. The nature of the site in terms of interaction capabilities or commercial nature is not material. The court also clearly said that this action of deliberate nature is something more than was specified by the Ninth Circuit as mentioned in Cybersell v. Cybersell and panavision v. Toeppen, supra. The court judging the Millennium case specified the standard for jurisdiction also. It felt that the conduct of the defendant and the connection with the forum state should be such that he should have the feeling that he is likely to be called into the court there. 33 F. Supp 2d at 921