Trademark infringement suit tossed despite Instagram posts

Understated, Yet Complex

The process for becoming a Master Sommelier is akin to a byzantine ascent through the Masonic grades. We won’t go into detail about the baffling, rigorous testing involved, but the title – conferred in the states by the nonprofit Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas (CMS-A) – is as coveted as it is rare. Only a handful of sommeliers achieve this grade each year.

Until 2018, that is. That year saw a spike in successful aspirants that clued CMS-A into possible fraud. When it investigated, CMS-A discovered that someone had distributed information about the test to various applicants – and all but one of that year’s 24 inductees had their titles revoked.

But the issue at hand isn’t uncovering who passed around the 2018 test cheat sheet. Instead, we’re concerned with a trademark infringement case that sprung up because of the testing scandal.

Full Court Press

CMS-A sued Daniel Pilkey, one of the inductees whose title was revoked, back in June 2019 in the winy-est federal district of them all, California’s Northern District. Pilkey serves as the Midwest regional sales manager for Sonoma County’s Paul Hobbs Wines Company, with sales territories including Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, South Dakota and Missouri. (The region where he worked will be important later.) CMS-A, which owns the “Master Sommelier” trademark, claims that Pilkey represented himself over social media as an official Master Sommelier despite losing his title, and in doing so infringed CMS-A’s trademark rights.

Its evidence included Twitter chats, photos of wine bottles and vineyards in Instagram posts geotagged in California, an Instagram post referencing particular restaurants where Pilkey made an appearance, and another post with his business card promoting a judging gig he took at something called the “Sommelier Challenge International Wine & Spirits Competition.” (We weren’t invited.) He also allegedly used the Master Sommelier title on his Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn profile pages.

Pilkey moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in October 2019; the court approved his motion last month.

The Takeaway

“The Court is faced with a somewhat novel task in evaluating whether Defendant’s posts on social media, including the posts described above, amount to intentional acts expressly aimed at California,” the order notes. “Only a handful of courts have directly considered whether a specific social media post, or series of posts, constitute purposeful direction. Even fewer of these courts have considered posts to a personal account.”

The court found that Pilkey’s social media posts connected him more firmly to the Chicago wine scene than California’s and that he did business outside of California, not in it. While he occasionally mentioned his upbringing in the Golden State and his current, California-based employer in his posts, “the content of his posts appears to be general information and enthusiasm about wine – topics which might be appealing to any sommelier or fan of wine.”

The court saved more sweeping language for CMS-A’s argument that “because California is widely acknowledged to make superlative wine, Defendant’s posts about wine must clearly be targeted to a California market.” This argument, the court writes, “would sweep a citizen of any state making a personal social media post about wine under the aegis of the California courts simply because much good wine is made in California. … This expansive notion of jurisdiction cuts against the scope of the contacts that courts have traditionally required to justify the exertion of judicial power.”

For a comprehensive look at the crossroads of jurisdictional issues and social media, the order is well worth a read. We couldn’t cover all the topics that fell within its scope – the plaintiff threw a lot of spaghetti (pairs nicely with a 2006 Michele Chiarlo Barbera d’Asti Le Orme) at the wall. Be sure to check it out.