In this action, plaintiff sought a declaration that its use of the trademark “Impossible” in connection with its food products didn’t infringe upon defendant’s federal trademark of the same word.  By a split decision, the 9th Circuit held that California could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a one-man LLC that for two years operated primarily from San Diego before moving to Texas around the time that plaintiff began using the “Impossible” mark.  For specific jurisdiction, (1) the defendant must purposefully direct his activities to the forum or purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities there, (2) the claim must arise out of or relate to those forum-related activities, and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.  There is no strict line between purposeful direction (used mostly in tort cases) and purposeful availment (used mostly in contract cases).  Here, the defendant promoted its brand for two years from California, satisfying the first requirement even if it didn’t know it was likely to harm plaintiff here (a normal requirement for purposeful direction).  The claim of noninfringement was related to the in-forum brand building activities because trademarks (unlike patents) are built upon use of the mark.  It does not matter that the in-forum use of the mark and brand building occurred before plaintiff commenced business.  The claim still relates to the defendant’s in-forum activities.  It was not unreasonable to sue defendant in California.