CASE SUMMARY $3\mathrm{.}7$ Tempur$-$Pedic International v$.$ Go Satellite Inc., $758$ F$.$ Supp. $2$d $366($N$.$D$.$ Tex. $2010)$

INTERNET JURISDICTION

Tempur$-$Pedic brought suit against Go Satellite in a federal court in Texas, alleging that Go Satellite infringed on Tempur$-$Pedic's registered trademark. The suit alleged that Go Satellite operated two websites that sold Tempur$-$Pedic brand mattresses without being an authorized dealer for TempurPedic. Go Satellite asked the court to dismiss the claim because the Texas court had no personal jurisdiction over the company because it was based in Kentucky, did not own property in Texas, and had no sales force in Texas. Tempur$-$Pedic countered that Go Satellite's website was highly interactive, including the ability for consumers to purchase and pay online and to have a virtual chat with a customer service representative, and had, in fact, sold and shipped mattresses to consumers in Texas.

CASE QUESTIONS

What test or tests could the court apply to determine whether the website constitutes sufficient contacts to warrant personal jurisdiction in Texas?

Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Go Satellite? Why or why not?

Name some examples of "interactivity" that a court may consider when analyzing personal jurisdiction via the Internet.