Page 15 - CLT122120

NEWS DECEMBER 21, 2020 ¦ 15

had assigned the exclusive international rights in
his intellectual property to The Cousteau Society
(TCS), a Virginia-based not-for-profit formed back
in the 1970s to safeguard Cousteau’s legacy. The ex-
clusive rights included to Cousteau’s name, voice,
likeness and signature, as well as trademarks. In
addition to Cousteau’s name, the registered trade-
marks include the name of his boat “Calypso” and
the phrase “The Journey Continues.”
Cousteau’s alienated granddaughter Celine
Cousteau founded The Celine Cousteau Film Fel-
lowship (CCFF) to create multimedia productions
focused on environmental and socio-cultural
matters. TCS filed suit over CCFF’s documentary
production Celine Cousteau, The Adventure Con- Flag of France
tinues, described in the complaint as “retrac[ing
Cousteau’s] steps. Exploring how the planet has complaint while she was in Connecticut. When
changed since his epic adventures.” The TCS law- Celine and CCFF moved to dismiss for lack of
suit also alleged CCFF was using Jacques Cousteau personal jurisdiction, Connecticut federal Dis-
intellectual property without permission to raise trict Judge Alvin W. Thompson noted, as to Celine,
funding through CCFF’s website. under the state’s liberal practice: “Courts in Con-
necticut have held that service on an individual
TCS originally sued in U.S. District Court for the who is physically present in the state is sufficient
Central District of California, including alleging to exercise personal jurisdiction over her and have
violation of that state’s right of publicity law. The not looked to a provision of the [Connecticut]
Cousteau Society Inc. v. Cousteau, 19-521. Celine long-arm statute to reach that conclusion.”
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that she
hadn’t lived in California since she was a child. TCS But District Judge Thompson applied a long-
countered that a promotional video for The Ad- arm statute analysis to CCFF. Like many other U.S.
venture Continues had been uploaded to YouTube, courts, Judge Thompson observed, “Courts in this
which is based in California, and cited several ac- district have drawn a distinction between active
tivities unrelated to Celine’s documentary in which and passive websites for purposes of the exercise
she had been involved in the state. of personal jurisdiction.” The district judge went
on to decide: “Because the affairs which CCFF
Central District Judge Percy Anderson dismissed conducted in Connecticut include soliciting do-
the complaint without prejudice, concluding: “Even nations on and receiving them through its website
assuming at this stage that Defendants posted the on which it utilizes TCS’s marks to solicit such
video on YouTube, Plaintiff has not identified any- donations, this suit ‘bears some connection with’
thing about the video that is aimed at California.” those affairs,” making CCFF subject to service
As to Celine’s activities in the state, the California of process under Conn. Gen. Stat. §33-1219(e).
federal judge found: “Even taken together, these (The Connecticut district court dismissed TCS’s
contacts are not suit-related and do not establish Lanham Act trademark infringement and false-
either purposeful availment of California or pur- designation-of-origin claims on the ground that
poseful direction expressly aimed at California.” the plaintiff failed to allege use of The Journey
How then did the Cousteau dispute come to Continues documentary “in commerce” in the
be heard by a federal court in Connecticut? As United States, but allowed TCS’s false-designa-
advance promotion, CCFF arranged a screening tion-of-origin claim to proceed over the Celine
in Connecticut. TCS had Celine served with the
¦ Continued on PAGE 16

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune