In a precedential decision addressing an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a foreign intellectual property holding company that owns numerous U.S. trademark registrations can be subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States. The Court reversed a lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the company’s extensive trademark activity demonstrated sufficient contacts with the United States. Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v. Polygroup Macau Ltd., No. 23-114 (11th Cir. June 10, 2025) (Rosenbaum, Lagoa, Wilson, JJ.).
Background
Polygroup Macau Ltd., an IP holding entity based in the British Virgin Islands, owns over 60 U.S. trademark registrations. The plaintiff, Jekyll Island-State Park Authority, a Georgia entity operating the Summer Waves Water Park, holds a federal trademark for the words SUMMER WAVES.
In 2021, Jekyll Island discovered that Polygroup Macau had registered multiple trademarks nearly identical to its SUMMER WAVES mark. After Polygroup Macau attempted to purchase Jekyll Island’s domain name, summerwaves.com, the authority filed suit for trademark infringement and cancellation of Polygroup Macau’s competing marks.
The district court dismissed the case, holding that the “causal connection” between Polygroup Macau’s U.S. activities and the alleged trademark infringement was “too ‘attenuated’ to support personal jurisdiction.” Jekyll Island appealed.
Rule 4(k)(2) and the National Long-Arm Statute
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit analyzed jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), commonly known as the national long-arm statute. This rule permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant when three conditions are met:
-
The plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law;
-
The defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any individual U.S. state;
-
Exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws.
The parties agreed that the first two elements were satisfied. The dispute centered on whether asserting jurisdiction would comport with due process.
Purposeful Availment Through Trademark Activity
In evaluating the due process requirement, the Eleventh Circuit looked to analogous precedent from the Federal Circuit, which had held in the patent context that a foreign party who “sought and obtained a property interest from a U.S. agency has purposefully availed itself of the laws of the United States.”
The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the case for jurisdiction is even stronger in the trademark context. Unlike patent rights, trademark registration in the United States requires evidence of either actual use in commerce or a bona fide intent to use. The Court emphasized that “[a] trademark registrant must show that he is already using the mark in U.S. commerce to identify and distinguish goods or intends to soon.”
Polygroup Macau had more than 60 U.S. trademark registrations and permitted related entities and customers to use those marks in U.S. commerce. Even in the absence of formal licensing agreements, the Court found that Polygroup Macau “exercised some degree of control over the marks,” and the goods bearing the trademarks were sold nationwide through multiple retailers.
Critically, the Court noted that because the trademark rights stemmed from use in U.S. commerce, Polygroup Macau “should have known that [the marks] would be used in United States commerce by related Polygroup companies.” The company’s actions, the Court concluded, demonstrated a “deliberate effort to exploit the U.S. market,” thereby supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Sufficient Nexus to Infringement Claims
The Eleventh Circuit also held that Polygroup Macau’s conduct—specifically, allowing its marks to be used by related entities in the United States—was sufficiently connected to Jekyll Island’s trademark infringement claim. Thus, the Court found a strong enough nexus to support jurisdiction.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that defending the case in Georgia would be unfair or unreasonable. Given the extent of Polygroup Macau’s engagement with the U.S. trademark system and commerce, the Court concluded that defending the suit in Georgia did not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Key Takeaways
This decision significantly clarifies the reach of personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) for foreign IP holding companies. When a foreign entity actively registers and utilizes U.S. trademarks—even through affiliates or related companies—courts may find that it has purposefully availed itself of U.S. law and is therefore subject to jurisdiction.
Our Maryland IP Attorneys feel companies holding U.S. IP assets from abroad should consider this ruling a warning: leveraging U.S. trademark rights can open the door to being haled into U.S. courts, even absent a physical presence or direct sales.