“When a service provider is a corporation, it may be found in a federal judicial district for § 512(g)(3)(D) purposes if its agents or officers carry on the corporation’s business in the district.” – Tenth Circuit opinion
“当服务提供商是公司时，如果其代理人或高管在该司法管辖区内开展业务，则可根据第512(g)(3)(D）条认定该联邦司法管辖区对其存在管辖权。”——第十巡回法院意见
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday, October 15, ruled that a district court applied the wrong test for assessing personal jurisdiction in a case involving alleged counterfeit dolls being sold on Amazon.
美国第十巡回上诉法院于10月15日星期二裁定，地区法院在一起涉及在亚马逊上销售假冒娃娃的案件中，适用了错误的个人管辖权评估标准。
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denied a motion for default judgment filed by Utah-based Bountiful Baby, a maker of kits for creating “reborn dolls,” against two Chinese companies— Adolly US (AUS) and Reborn Doll Gallery (RDG)—that it claimed were selling counterfeit versions of the dolls on Amazon.com. Bountiful Baby had first notified Amazon of the infringement, and Amazon promptly removed the listings under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which provides a safe harbor for platforms if they expeditiously remove infringing material. AUS and RDG submitted counter notifications to Amazon to have the items relisted and in doing so consented to personal jurisdiction in “any judicial district in which Amazon may be found” and "agreed to accept service of process from" Bountiful Baby or its agent.
位于犹他州的“Bountiful Baby”公司是制造“重生娃娃”套件的公司，该公司向犹他州地区联邦法院提交了一项针对两家中国公司——Adolly US（AUS）和Reborn Doll Gallery（RDG）的缺席判决动议，但法院予以拒绝。Bountiful Baby声称这两家公司在亚马逊上销售假冒的重生娃娃版本。Bountiful Baby首先通知了亚马逊这一侵权行为，亚马逊根据《数字千年版权法案》（DMCA）迅速移除了相关商品，从而为平台提供了避风港保护。AUS和RDG随后向亚马逊提交了反通知，要求重新上架商品，并因此同意在“任何亚马逊可能存在的司法辖区”接受个人管辖，并“同意接受来自Bountiful Baby或其代理人的法律送达。”
Bountiful Baby then filed suit for copyright infringement in the Utah district court and served process on the two Chinese companies. Neither company responded and Bountiful Baby then moved for default judgment, but the court in denying the motion said that Amazon is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Washington, and thus Bountiful Baby had not shown that it “may be found” in Utah according to principles of constitutional due process. Bountiful Baby countered that Amazon could be found in Utah because it “maintains a physical presence or place of business there through multiple facilities.”
Bountiful Baby随后在犹他州地区法院提起版权侵权诉讼，并对这两家中国公司进行了法律送达。两家公司均未作出回应，Bountiful Baby随后申请缺席判决。然而，法院在驳回该动议时指出，亚马逊是在特拉华州注册成立的公司，其主要营业地位于华盛顿州，因此根据宪法正当程序原则，Bountiful Baby未能证明亚马逊“可以被认为”位于犹他州。Bountiful Baby反驳称，亚马逊在犹他州“通过多个设施维持了实体存在或营业场所”，因此应当被认为在该州存在。
The district court vacated its constitutional due process rationale and granted Bountiful Baby’s motion for reconsideration in part, but ultimately denied the motion after analyzing the plain meaning of "found" according to Black’s Law Dictionary. That definition says in part that “it is necessary that [the corporation] be doing business in such state through an officer or agent or by statutory authority in such manner as to render it liable then to suit and to constructive or substituted service of process.”
地区法院撤销了其关于宪法正当程序的理由，部分批准了Bountiful Baby的复议动议，但最终在依据《布莱克法律词典》分析“found”一词的字面含义后，驳回了该动议。该定义部分解释为，“必须通过公司的高级职员、代理人或法定授权在该州开展业务，以使其在该州面临诉讼，并接受构成或替代的法律送达。”
On review, the Tenth Circuit rejected this reliance on the Black’s Law definition, explaining that it “defines ‘found’ for purposes of service of process on a defendant-corporation.” The opinion continued:
在复审中，第十巡回法院驳回了对《布莱克法律词典》定义的依赖，解释说该定义是“针对被告公司进行法律送达的‘found’进行解释。”法院意见进一步指出：
“As we explain, whether process may be served on a corporation in a copyright case requires a due process analysis that, in some cases alleging copyright infringement by a service provider’s subscriber, will prove impossible to perform.”
“正如我们所解释的，是否可以在版权案件中对公司进行送达需要进行正当程序分析，而在某些涉及服务提供商用户的版权侵权案件中，这种分析将难以执行。”
Instead, the Tenth Circuit relied on non-legal dictionaries in existence at the time of the DMCA’s enactment in 1998, including Webster’s American Family Dictionary, The Oxford American Desk Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and others. Based on those definitions, the appellate court concluded that “a federal district court has personal jurisdiction over a subscriber whose address is outside the United States if it is possible to come upon or locate the service provider in the forum state.” As to how one comes upon or locates a service provider that is a corporation, the court said that “when a service provider is a corporation, it may be found in a federal judicial district for § 512(g)(3)(D) purposes if its agents or officers carry on the corporation’s business in the district.”
相反，第十巡回法院依赖于1998年《数字千年版权法案》（DMCA）颁布时存在的非法律词典，包括《韦伯斯特美国家庭词典》《牛津美式桌面词典》《美国传统英语词典》等。根据这些定义，巡回法院得出结论：“如果在提起诉讼法院所在的州能够找到或定位到服务提供商，联邦地区法院对位于美国境外的用户拥有个人管辖权。”关于如何找到或定位一家作为公司的服务提供商，法院表示：“当服务提供商是公司时，如果其代理人或高管在该地区开展公司的业务，则可根据第512(g)(3)(D）条在该联邦司法区内认定其存在管辖权。”。
Having settled on this definition, the Tenth Circuit then held that Bountiful Baby had shown that Amazon’s agents or officers are present in Utah and conducting business there. The opinion cited to statements from the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity and various news articles discussing Amazon’s extensive economic contributions and operations in the state as support for this. The court therefore reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing the action against the Chinese companies and remanded for further proceedings.
在确定了这个定义后，第十巡回法院认定Bountiful Baby已证明亚马逊的代理人或高管在犹他州存在并在该州开展业务。法院引用了犹他州经济机会办公室的声明以及多篇讨论亚马逊在该州广泛经济贡献和运营的新闻文章作为支持。因此，法院撤销了地区法院对中国公司驳回诉讼的判决，并将案件发回重审。