“Trademark Registration as Purposeful Availment” – The Eleventh Circuit’s New Rule on Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign IP-Holding Companies

Introduction

Jekyll Island–State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Ltd. is a sweeping 2025 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that clarifies when a federal court may assert specific personal jurisdiction—via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2)—over a foreign intellectual-property holding company that itself does not sell products in the United States.

The dispute arises from competing “SUMMER WAVES” trademarks: Georgia’s Jekyll Island State Park Authority (operator of Summer Waves Water Park) discovered that Polygroup Macau, an IP-holding entity incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, had registered similar U.S. marks and was enabling sister companies to place SUMMER WAVES-branded pools and toys on American shelves. When Jekyll Island sued for infringement and cancellation, the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that:

Registering and enforcing U.S. trademarks is itself purposeful availment of U.S. law; and
A trademark owner can be haled into a U.S. court when its affiliates’ use of those marks allegedly injures a U.S. plaintiff, even if the owner never directly sold goods in the forum.

Summary of the Judgment

Applying Rule 4(k)(2) (the “national long-arm statute”), the Court found personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible under the Fifth Amendment because:

Purposeful availment. Polygroup Macau “continuously and deliberately exploited” the U.S. market by:
- filing >70 U.S. trademark applications and >30 patent applications,
- invoking USPTO procedures and U.S. courts to enforce IP rights, and
- permitting related companies to use its marks on goods sold nationwide.
Relatedness. Jekyll Island’s infringement and cancellation claims were “close enough” to Polygroup’s U.S. contacts because the contested registrations required proof of U.S. use, and Polygroup relied on its affiliates’ sales to maintain those registrations.
Fair play and substantial justice. Litigating in the United States was not unconstitutionally burdensome: Polygroup is accustomed to U.S. litigation and intentionally leveraged U.S. legal protections; conversely, the United States has a compelling interest in adjudicating disputes over federally registered marks.

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for merits consideration.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021). Rejected a strict “but-for” causation test for specific jurisdiction; emphasized that contacts need only “relate to” the litigation. The Eleventh Circuit leaned heavily on Ford to repudiate the district court’s demand for a direct causal chain.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) & International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). Foundational “minimum contacts” cases establishing purposeful availment and fair-play analysis.
National Patent Development Corp. v. T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd., 877 F.2d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1989) and Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 574 F.3d 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Both hold that registering a patent in the United States constitutes purposeful availment; the Eleventh Circuit extended this reasoning to trademarks.
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013). Confirms that on-line sales and marketing into a forum can ground jurisdiction—a principle analogized to Polygroup’s marketing of SUMMER WAVES products.
Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Describes jurisdiction based on “stream of commerce” via distributors; used here to show indirect exploitation of the U.S. market.

B. Legal Reasoning

Rule 4(k)(2) Gateway. Since Polygroup conceded it was not subject to any particular state’s jurisdiction, Rule 4(k)(2) allowed the court to aggregate nationwide contacts.
Trademark registration as contact. The Court reasoned that:
- A U.S. trademark has no extraterritorial existence; it is purely a creature of U.S. law.
- To register under §1(a), Polygroup declared use “in commerce” and appointed U.S. counsel—conscious, continuing ties with the forum.
- Registration affords powerful benefits—presumptive validity, border protection (§1124), incontestability—thereby creating a reciprocity between benefits enjoyed and amenability to suit.
Affiliates’ sales & marketing. Even absent formal licenses or royalties, Polygroup’s deliberate decision to let sister companies plaster its marks on products sold by Walmart, Costco, etc., showed a concrete expectation of U.S. commerce. The Court treated the web of entities as either an implied license or an alter-ego arrangement.
“Arise out of or relate to.” Under Ford, causation is unnecessary. The nexus prong was met because:
- Cancellation claim directly attacks the registrations themselves.
- Infringement claims relate to the same registrations—the rights Polygroup obtained by invoking U.S. law depend on the very sales said to be infringing.
Fairness factors. Polygroup litigates routinely in the United States, is represented by Georgia counsel, and has U.S. affiliates funding litigation; conversely, only a U.S. court can adjudicate U.S. trademark validity. These considerations outweighed any burden.

C. Impact of the Decision

Expansive reach of Rule 4(k)(2). Foreign holding companies that use the “passive IP owner” model can now expect nationwide jurisdiction if they register marks/patents and allow affiliates to exploit them.
Elevation of registration activities. By explicitly equating trademark registration with purposeful availment, the Eleventh Circuit lowers plaintiffs’ hurdles in forum disputes involving non-resident right-holders.
Corporate-structure limitations. The Court signals hostility to “formalistic structuring” designed to insulate IP owners from U.S. litigation, foreshadowing more veil-piercing or alter-ego analyses in future IP cases.
Potential TTAB/TM practice change. Foreign applicants will weigh the litigation exposure inherent in U.S. registration decisions; counsel must now warn that a mark registration, standing alone, may confer U.S. jurisdiction.
Guidance for district courts. The opinion supplies a detailed, Ford-compliant template for analyzing the relatedness prong—expect to see this cited well beyond the Eleventh Circuit in trademark, patent, and even FDA-approval contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction – A court’s power to make decisions binding on a defendant. “Specific” jurisdiction concerns only claims connected to the defendant’s forum activities.
Rule 4(k)(2) – A procedural rule letting federal courts reach foreign defendants when (i) the claim is based on federal law, (ii) no single state has jurisdiction, and (iii) aggregated U.S. contacts satisfy due-process minimum contacts.
Purposeful Availment – The defendant must have voluntarily created contacts showing it intended to obtain benefits/protections of the forum’s laws.
Trademark Registration Benefits – Includes nationwide constructive notice, presumption of validity, Customs enforcement, and potential incontestability after five years.
“Arise out of or relate to” – After Ford, a claim need not be caused by the forum contacts; being “related” (logically connected) may suffice.
Alter-Ego / Veil-Piercing – Courts may treat separate companies as one when corporate separateness is more formal than real, preventing avoidance of liability or jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision creates a potent new rule: registering a U.S. trademark or patent and leveraging its protections amounts, by itself, to purposeful availment sufficient for nationwide personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). When coupled with affiliates’ U.S. sales, the link to infringement litigation is “close enough,” even absent direct sales by the IP owner.

As globalization drives more multijurisdictional brand strategies, Jekyll Island v. Polygroup Macau warns foreign IP-holding entities that the shield of corporate compartmentalization will not prevent them from being “haled into” U.S. courts. The ruling harmonizes traditional due-process limits with the realities of modern IP monetization and is poised to influence trademark and patent disputes nationwide.