Reword the following answer: Certainly! Let's delve deeper into the concepts of venue and statutory jurisdiction to understand how they apply to the case between See, Inc. and Imago Eyewear: 3. **Venue**: - **Definition**: Venue refers to the specific location where a court case is heard. It is typically determined by the location of the defendant or where the events that gave rise to the lawsuit occurred. - **Application**: In cases involving foreign defendants, such as Imago Eyewear, U.S. laws provide more flexibility in choosing the venue. This means that See, Inc. can file the lawsuit in any U.S. judicial district where the effects of the alleged infringement are felt. Since Imago Eyewear's website is accessible in Michigan and potentially infringes on See, Inc.'s trademarks, Michigan is a viable venue. The rationale is that the impact of the infringement is experienced in Michigan, where See, Inc. operates and where its trademarks are registered. 4. **Statutory Jurisdiction**: - **Definition**: Statutory jurisdiction under the Lanham Act allows U.S. courts to hear cases of trademark infringement. It is based on where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. - **Application**: If Imago Eyewear's activities through its website are deemed infringing, and if these activities have a significant impact on See, Inc.'s business in Michigan, this could establish statutory jurisdiction. The Lanham Act supports jurisdiction in any location where the infringement occurs, which can include Michigan due to th