Personal Jurisdiction and Trademark Disputes: Impossible Foods, Inc. v. Impossible X, LLC

Personal jurisdiction is a crucial aspect of the legal system, determining whether a court has the authority to hear a case involving a particular defendant. In the realm of intellectual property disputes, such as trademark cases, the question of personal jurisdiction can be complex and contentious. The case of Impossible Foods, Inc. v. Impossible X, LLC offers some new insight into this legal concept.


Igor Demcak

Details of the Case

The case revolves around two entities: Impossible Foods, Inc., a corporation specializing in plant-based meat substitutes, and Impossible X, LLC, a one-person company led by Joel Runyon, a self-described "digital nomad." Impossible Foods, Inc. had been using the "Impossible" mark in its products and marketing. On the other hand, Impossible X, LLC operated in the fitness and lifestyle niche and had registered several federal trademarks using the term "Impossible."

The dispute began when Impossible X, LLC sent a cease-and-desist letter to Impossible Foods, Inc. in 2020, demanding that the latter limit its use of the "Impossible" mark to "plant-based food substitutes." Furthermore, Impossible X, LLC opposed Impossible Foods, Inc.'s attempt to register an "Impossible" trademark for recipes. In response, in 2021, Impossible Foods, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in California. Their goal was to obtain a declaration that their use of the "IMPOSSIBLE" mark did not infringe on Impossible X, LLC's trademark rights.

Court Decision

The central issue before the court was whether it had personal jurisdiction over Impossible X, LLC in California, where the lawsuit was filed. The district court had initially dismissed the case, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the panel of judges on appeal reversed this decision and remanded the case for the district court to consider the merits of Impossible Foods, Inc.'s claims.

The panel's decision was based on the principle of specific personal jurisdiction. They argued that Impossible X, LLC had sufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. First, they noted that Impossible X had previously operated from California and had built its brand and trademarks there. Second, the activities of Impossible X, LLC in California were closely connected to the trademark dispute at hand, satisfying the due process requirements.

The panel's reasoning further expanded to emphasize that it wasn't limited to Impossible X, LLC's trademark enforcement activities. They asserted that this approach should apply to trademark cases, even if it might not be appropriate for patent declaratory judgments. Third, the panel argued that it was reasonable to expect Impossible X, LLC to defend a lawsuit in the state that had served as its headquarters and the home base of Joel Runyon, the owner of the company.

The case provides a valuable illustration of the challenges and nuances of personal jurisdiction in trademark disputes. It underscores the importance of considering past contacts with a jurisdiction, the broader context of trademark disputes, and the need for precision in legal arguments. This decision will likely influence future cases involving personal jurisdiction in trademark matters, making it a significant milestone in intellectual property law.

Igor Demcak
Igor Demcak

Trademark Attorney

Founder & CEO of Trama

7 year experience in IP protection

Gain more insights about the importance of brand in your industry through our selection of indicators and case studies.

Hero - food & drink industry