Plaintiff, Inset Systems, Inc. (Inset), is a Connecticut corporation which develops and manufactures computer software throughout the world, and the holder of a federal trademark on the name INSET. Defendant, Instruction Set, Inc. (ISI), is a Massachusetts corporation which provides computer technology support to thousands of organizations throughout the world, and the holder of the domain name INSET.COM and a telephone number 1-800-US-INSET. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant through its domain name and telephone number usage, violated Plaintiff rights under the Federal Trademark Act and various state unfair competition and trademark laws. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.

    The court addressed the global phenomenon of the Internet and the Domain Name System and explained the potential  conflicts with trademark law: "If a company uses a domain which is identical to the name or trademark of a company, an Internet user may inadvertently access an unintended company. Thereafter, the Internet user may not realize that the advertisement is actually from an unintended company, or the Internet user may erroneously assume that the source of information is the intended company. As a result, confusion in the marketplace could develop."

    The court then addressed Defendant's contention that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. First, in discussing the scope of the state long-arm statute, the court analogized Defendant's activities to newspaper advertising in the state of Connecticut:
"since March, 1995, ISI has been continuously advertising over the Internet, which includes at least 10,000 access sites in Connecticut. Further, unlike hard-copy advertisements noted in the above two cases, which are often quickly disposed of and reach a limited number of potential consumers, Internet advertisements are in electronic printed form so that they can be accessed again and again by many more potential consumers. The court concludes that advertising via the Internet is solicitation of a sufficient repetitive nature to satisfy subsection (c)(2) of the Connecticut long-arm statute, C.G.S. § 33-411, thereby conferring Connecticut's long-arm jurisdiction upon ISI."

    Next the Court addressed Defendant's constitutional argument: that to assert personal jurisdiction would be a violation of Due Process because Defendant did not have sufficient "minimum contacts" in the state of Connecticut.
"In the present case, Instruction has directed its advertising activities via the Internet and its toll-free number toward not only the state of Connecticut, but to all states. The Internet as well as toll-free numbers are designed to communicate with people and their businesses in every state. Advertisement on the Internet can reach as many as 10,000 Internet users within Connecticut alone. Further, once posted on the Internet, unlike television and radio advertising, the advertisement is available continuously to any Internet user. ISI has therefore, purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business within Connecticut. The court concludes that since ISI purposefully directed its advertising activities toward this state on a continuing basis since March, 1995, it could reasonably anticipate the possibility of being hailed into court here."

    The court also noted that the relatively short distance (less than two hours travel time) between the Defendant's offices and the courthouse meant that required the dispute to be adjudicated in Connecticut did not offend "notions of fair play and substantial justice."