Reword the following answer: Certainly! Let's delve deeper into each jurisdictional factor to understand how they apply to the case of See, Inc. versus Imago Eyewear: 1. **Personal Jurisdiction**: - **Definition**: Personal jurisdiction is the court's authority over the parties involved in the lawsuit. For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign entity, the entity must have sufficient connections, or "minimum contacts," with the state. - **Application**: Imago Eyewear, an Australian company, operates a website accessible in Michigan. Even if no Michigan resident has directly contacted Imago through the website, the mere accessibility of the site in Michigan could be seen as establishing a connection. If the website's use potentially infringes on See, Inc.'s trademarks, this could be enough to establish personal jurisdiction, as the alleged harm (trademark infringement) is related to the website's accessibility in Michigan. 2. **Subject Matter Jurisdiction**: - **Definition**: This refers to the court's power to hear the type of case presented. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws, such as trademark laws. - **Application**: See, Inc. is alleging a violation of federal trademark law, which falls under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Therefore, the Michigan Federal Court has the authority to hear this case because it involves a federal questiontrademark infringement under U.S. law. 3. **Venue**: - **Definition**: Venue refers to the most appropriate location for the trial. It is generally base