Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cross v. Coalition To Advance The Protection of NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and CLC LLC Sports Logos

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

May 4, 2015

JAMES CROSS, Plaintiff,


PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge.

James Cross, a pro se plaintiff, brings this declaratory judgment action against the Defendant, Coalition to Advance the Protection of the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and CLC LLC Sport Logos ("CAPS"). Cross seeks a declaration that he has not committed trademark infringement by using the logos of popular sports teams on his patented jerseys. CAPS has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and because Cross has failed to adequately state a claim for relief [DE 46]. For the reasons set forth below, Cross's case is DISMISSED.


The Coalition to Advance the Protection of the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and CLC LLC Sport Logos, or CAPS, is an unincorporated association that manages intellectual property on behalf of the licensing arms of the major sports leagues. The CAPS members are the Collegiate Licensing Company LLC; Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.; NBA Properties LLC; NFL Properties LLC; and NHL Enterprises, L.P. [DE 41 at ¶ 1].

James Cross is an inventor and a businessman who holds two design patents for the idea of adding a zipper to the front of a sports jersey [DE 24 at 10-13]. He sells zipper versions of baseball, basketball, and football jerseys through his company Zip-A-Tee Shirt, Inc.[1] Zip-A-Tee Shirt offers zipper jerseys bearing the logos of well-known teams like the Chicago Bulls, Chicago Bears, and Los Angeles Lakers [DE 24 at 16-18].

In his amended complaint, Cross alleges that CAPS sent him a series of ceaseand-desist letters in February and March 2012 [DE 24 ¶ 8]. The letters claimed that Cross was infringing the trademarks owned by CAPS members by selling Bulls and Lakers jerseys without CAPS members' permission [DE 24 at 7-9]. Cross denied he was infringing CAPS members' marks. Id. In response, CAPS sent letters to the companies that hosted the ZIP-A-Tee Shirt websites, informing the hosting companies about CAPS' trademark claim [DE 24 ¶¶ 10, 13]. The hosting companies promptly shut the Zip-A-Tee Shirt websites down. Id.

In his Amended Complaint, Cross seeks a declaration from the Court declaring that Cross has not infringed any trademarks owned by CAPS members and an injunction preventing CAPS from interfering with his business [DE 24 ¶¶ 16-23]. Cross also seeks an unbelievable $700 million in statutory damages for each website CAPS took down and a ridiculous $5 billion in punitive damages [DE 24 at 5].

CAPS has moved to dismiss on two grounds. First, CAPS asserts that Cross has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second, CAPS argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it, and so moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


Since the jurisdictional issue speaks to the power of the court, I will address it first. See Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007); N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 2014). A federal court's personal jurisdiction is determined by the laws of its forum state. Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2010). Indiana's long-arm statute allows jurisdiction so long as it's consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ind. R. Trial. P. 4.4(a); Rodriguez v. Cavitec AG, 2010 WL 2519715, at *4 (N.D. Ind. June 14, 2010). As a result, the state statutory and federal constitutional inquiries merge, and the determinative issue is whether the exercise of jurisdiction over CAPS comports with the federal Due Process Clause. Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 700; McKannan v. National Council of Young Men's Christian Assocs. of the U.S., 2010 WL 4668437, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2010).

Personal jurisdiction can be general or specific depending on the extent of the defendant's contacts. Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, 623 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir. 2010). General jurisdiction is proper in the "limited fora in which the defendant can be said to be at home'" such as a corporation's state of incorporation or state of the principal place of business. Advanced Tactical Ordinance Sys. v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir. 2014) as corrected (May 12, 2014). Specific jurisdiction is available for a suit that arises out of the defendant's forumrelated activity. It is appropriate where (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in a state, (2) the alleged injury "arises out of or relates to" the defendant's activities in that state, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 702. This test aims to "ensure that an out-of-state defendant is not bound to appear to account for merely random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts' with the forum state." Id. (quoting Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1071 (10th Cir. 2008)); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985).

Cross has the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction, though he need only make a prima facie showing of the jurisdictional facts and is entitled to have any factual conflicts resolved in his favor. See Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003).

CAPS provided an affidavit from Lisa Uriguen Armstrong, the president of TM Management, Inc., which is the entity that administers CAPS on behalf of the CAPS members [DE 41 ¶ 1]. Armstrong's affidavit details the rather attenuated connections between CAPS and Indiana. Armstrong stated that CAPS is administered out of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and does not have any offices, employees, or bank accounts in Indiana. Id. ¶ 4. CAPS does not solicit business in Indiana and has never filed a lawsuit there. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9. Only a very small percentage of CAPS' activities involve Indiana. For example only ten of the 1, 600 cease-and-desist letters CAPS has sent out in the past five years were sent to individuals or entities in Indiana. Id. ¶ 6. A similarly small percentage of CAPS' other main activity, training and assisting law enforcement with respect to counterfeiting operations, occurred in Indiana. Id. ¶¶ 5-7.

As for CAPS' actions in this specific case, Armstrong stated that CAPS purchased a zippered Chicago White Sox jersey from the ZIP-A-Tee Shirt website as part of their investigation. Id. ¶ 12. And CAPS sent cease-and-desist letters and emails to Cross and the hosting ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.