AYLA , LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., an Australian Private Company

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AYLA , LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALYA SKIN PTY. LTD., an Australian
Private Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16214
D.C. No.
4:19-cv-00679-
HSG
OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 11, 2021
San Francisco, California
Filed August 27, 2021
Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit
Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff,* District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Rakoff
* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 20 --

2 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
SUMMARY**
Personal Jurisdiction
Reversing the district court’s dismissal of a trademark
infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), and remanding,
the panel held that defendant Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., an
Australian skincare company, was subject to specific
personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
Rule 4(k)(2) provides that personal jurisdiction is proper
when an action arises under federal law, the defendant is not
subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general
jurisdiction, and the federal court’s exercise of jurisdiction
comports with due process.
The panel held that the exercise of nationwide
jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant comported with
due process because Alya Skin had minimum contacts with
the United States, and subjecting it to an action in that forum
would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. The panel held that Alya Skin’s
minimum contacts gave rise to specific personal jurisdiction
because the company purposefully directed its activities
toward the United States; the plaintiff’s Lanham Act and
unfair competition claims arose out of or resulted from Alya
Skin’s forum-related activities; and the exercise of
jurisdiction was reasonable.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It
has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

-- 2 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 3
The panel concluded that under the Calder “effects test,”
Alya Skin committed an intentional act expressly aimed at
the United States, causing harm that it knew was likely to be
suffered there, because its marketing, sales, and operations
reflected significant focus on the United States. Viewing the
facts in totality and in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, the panel concluded that Alya Skin purposefully
directed its activities toward and availed itself of the
protections and benefits of the United States.
The panel concluded that the plaintiff’s claims arose out
of or resulted from Alya Skin’s forum-related activities
because Alya Skin’s contacts with the United States included
the very same promotions, sales, and distribution of which
the plaintiff complained.
The panel further concluded that Alya Skin did not
present a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction
would be unreasonable and therefore violate due process.
COUNSEL
Gregory R. Smith (argued), Peter J. Gregora (argued),
Bridget A. Smith, Jason C. Linger, and Colette E. Woo,
Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Los Angeles, California,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David Grossman (argued) and Camron Dowlatshahi, Loeb
& Loeb, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.

-- 3 of 20 --

4 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
OPINION
RAKOFF, District Judge:
Ayla, LLC (“Ayla”), a San Francisco-based beauty
brand, filed an action against Alya Skin Pty. Ltd. (“Alya
Skin”), an Australian beauty and skincare brand, in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California,
alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin,
and unfair competition. (Compl. ¶ 24–53). Alya Skin moved
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The district court
granted the motion to dismiss. We hold that Alya Skin is
subject to specific personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) and reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ayla is a San Francisco-based beauty and wellness brand
that offers skincare and hair products through its online and
retail stores, as well as health and personal care advice on its
website. (Compl. ¶ 6, 8). Ayla is the registered owner of
three trademarks for use of the “AYLA” word mark in
connection with on-site beauty services, online retail beauty
products and cosmetics services, and cosmetics. (Compl.,
¶ 9–11, Ex. 1–3). Ayla alleges that its promotional efforts
have generated significant consumer goodwill toward its
brand and that Ayla’s exclusive and continuous use of the
AYLA mark has led the public to associate the mark with
Ayla products. (Compl. ¶ 7, 12).
Defendant Alya Skin is an Australian skincare company.
(Compl. ¶ 7). Its place of incorporation and principal place
of business are in Australia, (Compl. ¶ 7), but Alya Skin sells
and ships its products worldwide. Ayla alleges that Alya
Skin began to use the marks ALYA and ALYA SKIN in

-- 4 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 5
connection with beauty products and online retail services in
“early 2018.” (Compl. ¶ 13).
Ayla brought this action against Alya Skin in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
in February 2019. The complaint asserts claims for
trademark infringement and false designation of origin
pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), as
well as unfair competition under the California Business &
Professions Code and under California common law.
(Compl. ¶ 24–53). Ayla alleges that Alya Skin has
“capitalize[d] on Ayla’s valuable reputation and customer
goodwill . . . by using the confusingly similar ALYA and
ALYA SKIN marks in connection with the advertisement,
marketing, promotion, sale, and/or offer for sale of beauty
supplies and retail store services.” (Compl. ¶ 15).
Alya Skin moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. In support of its motion, Alya Skin submitted a
declaration by one of its cofounders that asserted that Alya
Skin has no retail stores, offices or branches, officers,
directors, or employees, bank accounts, or real property in
the United States. Further, Alya Skin asserted that it does not
sell its products “in any retail store in the United States,”
solicit business from Americans, advertise “in any
publications that are directed primarily toward California
residents,” or otherwise direct advertising toward California
through online, television, and radio marketing. The
declaration also stated that Alya Skin ships worldwide but
“less than 10% of its sales have been to the United States and
less than 2% of its sales have been to California.” Another
cofounder submitted a declaration stating that Alya Skin
does not employ or contract directly with social media
influencers, but rather works with a Philippines-based firm
to contact Instagram influencers worldwide. However, Alya

-- 5 of 20 --

6 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
Skin stated that it does contract with “a third-party logistics
company” in Hayden, Idaho named Dollar Fulfilment “to
fulfill all of [Alya Skin’s] shipments outside of Australia and
New Zealand.”
In response, Ayla submitted four declarations of its own.
The declarations and accompanying exhibits showed that
Alya Skin filed an application for trademark registration in
the United States on December 14, 2018, and represented to
potential customers that its products are approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
declarations also showed that Alya Skin ships from, and
allows returns to, the Idaho facility that Alya Skin identified
as Dollar Fulfillment.
Ayla also offered evidence regarding Alya Skin’s online
activities. The Alya Skin website listed United States dollars
as the default currency when accessed by plaintiff’s counsel.
The website advertises two- to four-day delivery to the
United States, two- to five-day delivery to New Zealand and
Australia, and five- to ten-day delivery outside of those
countries. On November 20, 2018, Alya Skin posted
advertisements for a “Black Friday” sale on its Facebook
page. Alya Skin later advertised in an Instagram post:
“ATTENTION USA BABES WE NOW ACCEPT
afterpay.” Ayla also asserted that Alya Skin “appear[ed] to
have hired social media influencers” who live in the United
States. Lastly, Ayla offered evidence of Alya Skin’s website,
which states that its products have been featured in
American magazines, including Vogue and Teen Vogue.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack
of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v.
AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011).

-- 6 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 7
When a motion to dismiss is “based on written materials
rather than an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only
make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.’”
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797,
800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357,
1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). We “may not assume the truth of
allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by
affidavit,” Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc.,
557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977), but factual conflicts
between dueling affidavits “must be resolved in the
plaintiff’s favor.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800.
DISCUSSION
Ayla challenges the district court’s determination that it
did not have nationwide jurisdiction over Alya Skin pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Personal
jurisdiction is proper under Rule 4(k)(2) when (1) the action
arises under federal law, (2) “the defendant is not subject to
jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction,” and
(3) the court’s exercise of jurisdiction comports with due
process.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). Ayla’s Lanham Act
action relating to trademark infringement and false
designation of origin undisputedly arises under federal law,
and on appeal, Ayla only challenges the district court’s
holding with respect to nationwide jurisdiction.2 Thus, our
1 Rule 4(k)(2) is not disfavored in this Circuit. The district court
accurately commented that courts have rarely exercised jurisdiction
under 4(k)(2), but this rarity simply reflects that situations where a
defendant has the requisite contacts with the United States but not with
any one state are unusual. The rarity of the rule’s applicability does not
indicate that Rule 4(k)(2) imposes a higher standard for due process.
2 In the district court, Ayla had argued that Alya Skin is subject to
personal jurisdiction in California and, in the alternative, that it is subject

-- 7 of 20 --

8 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
only inquiry is whether the district court erroneously held
that the exercise of nationwide jurisdiction over Alya Skin
does not “comport with due process.” See Pebble Beach Co.
v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir. 2006).
Under Rule 4(k)(2), the due process analysis “is nearly
identical to traditional personal jurisdiction analysis . . .
[but] rather than considering contacts between [the
defendant] and the forum state, we consider contacts with
the nation as a whole.” Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N.
Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 462 (9th Cir. 2007).
A district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant comports with due process when the
defendant has at least “minimum contacts” with the forum
and subjecting the defendant to an action in that forum would
“not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” Int’l. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also
Holland Am. Line, 485 F.3d at 462. A defendant’s minimum
contacts can give rise to either general or specific
jurisdiction. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A.
v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414–15 (1984). The district court here
could not assert general jurisdiction over Alya Skin, because
neither Alya Skin’s principal place of business nor its place
of incorporation is in the United States, and Alya Skin
cannot be considered “at home” in the United States. See
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014); (Compl.
to nationwide jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2). The district court
held that Ayla failed to prove that Ayla is subject to personal jurisdiction
in California. Ayla does not challenge that holding on appeal and states
that its appeal “is premised solely on Rule 4(k)(2).”

-- 8 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 9
at ¶ 7). Accordingly, the sole potential basis for personal
jurisdiction is specific jurisdiction.
Specific jurisdiction exists over nonresident Alya Skin
(1) if the company “performed some act or consummated
some transaction” by which it “purposefully directed its
activit[ies]” toward the United States or “purposefully
availed itself of the privilege of conducting business” in the
United States, (2) if Ayla’s Lanham Act and unfair
competition claims “arise out of or result from” Alya Skin’s
“forum-related activities,” and (3) if the exercise of
jurisdiction is reasonable. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l
Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2002). “The
plaintiff bears the burden on the first two prongs,” but once
both are established, “the defendant must come forward with
a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would
not be reasonable.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011,
1016 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d
at 802).
I.
Our analysis under the “purposeful availment or
direction” prong of the specific jurisdiction test turns on the
nature of the underlying claims. See Morrill v. Scott Fin.
Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017). We generally
focus our inquiry on purposeful availment when the
underlying claims sound in contract and on purposeful
direction when they arise from alleged tortious conduct
committed outside the forum. Id.; see also Schwarzenegger,
374 F.3d at 802–03 (applying the purposeful direction test
where “defendant’s actions outside the forum state . . . are
directed at the forum, such as the distribution in the forum
state of goods originating elsewhere”). Trademark
infringement is treated as tort-like for personal jurisdiction
purposes, and so we focus on purposeful direction here.

-- 9 of 20 --

10 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th
Cir. 2020) (“[The plaintiff] alleges copyright and trademark
infringement claims, which sound in tort, so we apply a
‘purposeful direction’ analysis and ask whether [the
defendant] has purposefully directed activities at the United
States.” (citation omitted)).
Under the “effects test” set forth in Calder v. Jones,
465 U.S. 783 (1984), a defendant purposefully directs its
activities toward the forum when the defendant has
“(1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the
forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is
likely to be suffered in the forum state.” Axiom Foods,
874 F.3d at 1069 (quoting Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting
Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2012)). Express
aiming requires more than the defendant’s awareness that the
plaintiff it is alleged to have harmed resides in or has strong
ties to the forum, because “the plaintiff cannot be the only
link between the defendant and the forum.” Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014). “‘[S]omething more’—conduct
directly targeting the forum”—is required to confer personal
jurisdiction. Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.,
647 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rio Props.,
284 F.3d at 1020).
Here, Ayla has adduced sufficient evidence of
“something more” to satisfy the effects test set forth in
Calder. Alya Skin’s marketing, sales, and operations reflect
significant focus on the United States. These connections are
not premised on Alya Skin’s connection to the plaintiff.
Rather, each of these connections are between Alya Skin and
the forum itself.
Specifically, Alya Skin promoted its allegedly infringing
product by means of references explicitly aimed at
Americans. Such “significant advertising efforts,” locally

-- 10 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 11
targeted toward the forum, establish purposeful direction.
See Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1195–96
(9th Cir. 1988) (citing defendant’s “California advertising
efforts to attract patients” as evidence of purposeful
direction); see also CollegeSource, 653 F.3d at 1080 (use of
California-specific Google AdWords constituted purposeful
interjection). By advertising on Instagram with the words
“ATTENTION USA BABES WE NOW ACCEPT
afterpay,” Alya Skin targeted its promotional materials
specifically towards the United States. This post was an
intentional, explicit appeal to American consumers and no
others.
The district court found that Alya Skin’s marketing
targeted sales internationally rather than specifically at
Americans. But, in so finding, the district court ignored
instances where Alya Skin did target its sales specifically at
Americans, most notably the “ATTENTION USA BABES”
post. Moreover, the district court improperly discounted the
significance of Alya Skin’s advertising for “Black Friday”
sales, i.e., sales on the day after the U.S.’s distinctive
Thanksgiving holiday. Although Alya Skin presented
evidence that Black Friday is “slowly catching on in
Australia,” Alya Skin’s own evidence underscores that
Black Friday originated in the U.S. and remains “America’s
biggest shopping day.” Taken together with Alya Skin’s
other advertising aimed at Americans, the company’s “Black
Friday” advertising provides further support for the
conclusion that Alya Skin’s marketing targeted the United
States. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800 (where no
evidentiary hearing was held, conflicts between affidavits
“must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor”). In addition, Alya
Skin advertised on its website that its products were featured
in American magazines, including Teen Vogue and Vogue.
We need not decide whether the magazine features

-- 11 of 20 --

12 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
referenced on Alya Skin’s website would by themselves
establish purposeful direction and confer personal
jurisdiction.3 But in the context of Alya Skin’s other
advertising, they reinforce our conclusion here that Alya
Skin satisfied the purposeful direction requirement by
directing “an insistent marketing campaign . . . toward [the
forum.]” See Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1020 (holding website-
operator defendant’s magazine advertisements supported the
exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio
advertisements). That Alya Skin may have addressed much
of its advertising to an international or Australian audience
does not alter the jurisdictional effect of marketing targeted
specifically at the United States, the relevant forum.
With respect to Alya Skin’s volume of sales in the United
States, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770
(1984), is instructive. In Keeton, the Supreme Court upheld
the exercise of jurisdiction in New Hampshire over a
nonresident magazine publisher defendant. Id. at 772–75.
The Court reasoned that although the magazine publisher
had a nationwide audience and had not targeted the forum
particularly, it should reasonably anticipate an action
“wherever a substantial number of copies are regularly sold
and distributed.” Id. at 781.
Alya Skin’s substantial sales to American consumers are
similar to the significant volume of sales in Keeton. Nearly
3 Citing Alya Skin’s website, Ayla contends that Alya Skin’s
products were featured in American publications but does not, with any
specificity, allege that Alya Skin paid for or otherwise initiated its
products’ inclusion in these “features.” In the absence of specific factual
allegations about the degree of control that Alya Skin exercised over its
magazine contacts with the United States, we will not conclude that they
are sufficient in themselves to satisfy the purposeful direction
requirement.

-- 12 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 13
ten percent of Alya Skin’s products are sold in and shipped
to the United States. By this percentage-of-sales measure—
the only metric in the record before us—Alya Skin’s sales to
the forum are considerably more regular and significant than
those in Keeton. Compare Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc.,
682 F.2d 33, 33 (1st Cir. 1982) (“[Defendant’s] circulation
in New Hampshire amounts to less than one percent of their
total circulation in the United States.”), rev’d and remanded,
465 U.S. 770 (1984), with (“Alya Skin offers to ship its
products worldwide but less than 10% of its sales have been
to the United States.”). As Keeton demonstrates, there is no
“small percentage of sales” exception to the purposeful
direction principles discussed herein. Alya Skin’s sales to
the forum are no less substantial simply because the
company sold more products elsewhere. Alya Skin’s
argument that its United States sales are “de minimis” and
preclude the exercise of jurisdiction therefore fails.
To be sure, Alya Skin’s contacts with the United States
would be insufficient if they were “random, isolated, or
fortuitous.” Keeton, 465 U.S. at 774. But Alya Skin has done
more than merely place its products into the stream of
commerce, running the risk that its products might randomly
or serendipitously arrive in the United States. See Holland
Am. Line, 485 F.3d at 459–60 (contrasting “mere placement
of a product into a stream of commerce” and “sell[ing] . . .
products directly into the United States”). Alya Skin offers
its products directly for sale to the United States on its
website. Though some of its sales to the United States may
have occurred through third-party websites, like Instagram
and Facebook, Alya Skin operates those social media
accounts. Further, Alya Skin is not a parts manufacturer with
no control over the ultimate distribution of its products. See
Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano
Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 112–13 (1987) (plurality) (finding no

-- 13 of 20 --

14 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
jurisdiction where a parts manufacturer “did not create,
control, or employ the distribution system that brought its
valves to California”). To the contrary, Alya Skin determines
how and whether its orders are fulfilled.
Further, Alya Skin’s choice of fulfilment center is
especially telling. Alya Skin contracts with a fulfilment
center located in Idaho to ship its products throughout the
United States and elsewhere. When a defendant corporation
chooses to associate itself with a forum through a contractual
relationship that “envision[s] continuing and wide-reaching
contacts,” the defendant purposefully avails itself of the
forum and satisfies minimum contacts. Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 480 (1985); see also McGee v.
Int’l Life Ins., 355 U.S. 220, 223–24 (1957) (insurance
contract with forum resident fairly subjected insurer to
jurisdiction because of the continuing nature of the
contractual relationship); cf. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1019
(holding no purposeful direction where only connection to
the forum was “a one-time contract for the sale of a good”).
The contract between Alya Skin and Dollar Fulfillment was
ongoing and envisioned performance in the United States.
Although the distribution center shipped Alya Skin products
worldwide, performance of the contract clearly
contemplated shipping products from Idaho to consumers
throughout the United States.
As the Supreme Court emphasized in Burger King,
courts ought to consider the “contemplated future
consequences” of the contract to decide whether a defendant
purposefully availed itself of the forum. Burger King,
471 U.S. at 479. Alya Skin contemplated not only that
performance would occur in the forum, but also that the
location of the distributor could help Alya Skin better serve
the American market and grow its American contacts. By

-- 14 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 15
contracting with a distribution center in the United States,
Alya Skin could offer two- to four-day shipping within the
United States, whereas delivery to most other parts of the
world would take five to ten days.
Finally, Alya Skin’s purported FDA approval supports
the conclusion that the defendant sought out the benefits
afforded by this country’s regulatory regime.4 Alya Skin
represents to consumers that its products are “FDA
approved.” Obtaining and advertising approval by the FDA,
a United States regulatory agency, is an appeal specifically
to American consumers for whom the acronym “FDA” has
meaning. Alya Skin offers no other explanation for obtaining
and advertising FDA approval. This case is thus
distinguishable from Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations
S.A. v. Brown, where the Supreme Court found no personal
jurisdiction over a foreign tire company even when its
products “conformed to tire standards established by the
U.S. Department of Transportation and bore markings
required for sale in the United States.” 564 U.S. 915, 922
(2011). There is no evidence here that, as with the
Department of Transportation in Goodyear, the FDA
encourages foreign corporations to conform with its safety
4 Alya Skin also filed a trademark application for the ALYA SKIN
mark. This might be considered compelling evidence that Alya Skin has
satisfied the purposeful availment or direction test. See, e.g., Nat’l Pat.
Dev. Corp. v. T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd., 877 F.2d 1003, 1009–10 (D.C.
Cir. 1989) (en banc) (“By registering a patent in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, a party residing abroad purposefully avails itself
of the benefits and protections patent registration in this country
affords.”). However, the trademark application was withdrawn before
any action was taken on it. The parties dispute whether the withdrawn
application constitutes an additional significant contact. We need not
decide this issue because, in all events, we do not see how the claims in
this case could be said to arise out of or relate to a withdrawn application.

-- 15 of 20 --

16 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
standards to show generally that its products are safely
manufactured. See id. at 922 n.2. On the contrary, the FDA’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction is limited to products “intended
for import into the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 337a.
Viewing the facts in totality and in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800, we
conclude that Alya Skin purposefully directed its activities
toward and availed itself of the protections and benefits of
the United States.
II.
We now turn to the specific jurisdiction “nexus”
question: whether Ayla’s claims “arise out of or result from”
Alya Skin’s “forum-related activities.” See Rio Props.,
284 F.3d at 1019; Axiom Foods, 874 F.3d at 1068–69. In the
Supreme Court’s phrasing, a plaintiff’s claims must “arise
out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.”5
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct.
1017, 1026 (2021) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., S.F. Cnty., 137 S.
Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017)).
5 Alya Skin contends that Ayla “has not adequately shown that the[]
purported sales to the United States are the ‘but for’ cause of its harm.”
This argument is misguided. We clarify that our precedents permit but
do not require a showing of but-for causation to satisfy the nexus
requirement. See, e.g., Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11 F.3d
1482, 1490 (9th Cir. 1993) (applying “arises out of or related to” test). A
narrower test is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Ford Motor, 141 S. Ct. at 1026. In that case, the Supreme Court
emphasized that a strict causal relationship is not required. See id.
(“None of our precedents has suggested that only a strict causal
relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation
will do.”).

-- 16 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 17
This action both arises out of and relates to Alya Skin’s
contacts with the United States. Id. Ayla challenges Alya
Skin’s promotion, sale, and distribution of beauty products
bearing the ALYA mark on the ground that this mark is
confusingly similar to Ayla’s own trademark. Alya Skin’s
contacts with the United States include the very same
promotions, sales, and distribution of which Ayla complains.
Ayla sought to capture the attention of an American
audience and thereby sell allegedly infringing products to
that audience with advertisements addressed to “USA
BABES,” representations that its products were approved by
the FDA, and promises that it could ship goods from the
Idaho distribution center to American customers within five
business days. Further, Alya Skin has been somewhat
successful in its efforts: about 10% of its total sales are to the
United States. Each of these contacts relate to Ayla’s claims
because they are part of Alya Skin’s attempts to serve and
attract customers in the United States market, which caused
Ayla’s injuries in the United States. Thus, Ayla’s claims
arise out of Alya Skin’s contacts with the United States. See
id.
III.
Because Ayla has met its burden of proving that Alya
Skin purposefully directed its activities at the forum and that
the instant claims arise out of or relate to those activities, the
burden shifts to Alya Skin to present a “compelling case”
that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and
therefore violate due process. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016.
In this inquiry, we are guided by seven factors: “(1) the
extent of the defendant’s purposeful interjection into the
forum state’s affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of
defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the
sovereignty of the defendant’s state; (4) the forum state’s

-- 17 of 20 --

18 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient
judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of
the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and
effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative
forum.” Freestream Aircraft (Berm.) Ltd. v. Aero L. Grp.,
905 F.3d 597, 607 (9th Cir. 2018).
The purposeful interjection factor in the reasonableness
analysis is “analogous to the purposeful direction” factor.
Sinatra, 854 F.2d at 1199. As discussed above, the extent of
Alya Skin’s contacts with the United States is substantial.
Alya Skin has a “regular course” of sales of the allegedly
infringing products into the United States and produced
marketing directed at American consumers. Cf. J. McIntyre
Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 889 (2011) (Breyer,
J., concurring in judgment). Alya Skin maintains ongoing
ties to the forum through its contract with Dollar Fulfillment,
a fulfillment center in Idaho that enables Alya Skin to ship
its products quickly within the United States. Accordingly,
this factor weighs in favor of jurisdiction.
In light of Alya Skin’s extensive contacts with the United
States, Alya Skin’s argument that it would suffer financial
hardship and be unduly burdened because its cofounders
would have to travel to the United States for court
appearances is entitled to little weight. We recognize that
litigation in a distant forum is inconvenient. More
importantly, we acknowledge “unique burdens placed upon
one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system.”
Asahi Metal, 480 U.S. at 114. However, these burdens do not
outweigh the contacts on which Ayla’s claims are premised.
See id. (“When minimum contacts have been established,
often the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in the
exercise of jurisdiction will justify even the serious burdens
placed on the alien defendant.”).

-- 18 of 20 --

AYLA V . ALYA SKIN 19
The remaining factors weigh in favor of jurisdiction
because of the territorial nature of Ayla’s claims. Although
litigation against a foreign corporation “creates a higher
jurisdictional barrier than against a citizen from a sister state
because important sovereignty concerns exist,” Sinatra,
854 F.2d at 1199, the resolution of Ayla’s claims will
unlikely undermine Australian sovereignty. Ayla seeks only
the determination and enforcement of its rights under United
States trademark law and California unfair competition law
and challenges Alya Skin’s sales only in the United States.
Because Ayla’s claims rest on the law of California and
the United States, the United States would provide “the most
efficient judicial resolution of the controversy,” as well as
better provide Ayla “convenient and effective relief.”
Freestream Aircraft, 905 F.3d at 607. The United States also
has a clear interest in protecting its consumers from
confusion and providing redress for violations of its
trademark laws. Although Alya Skin asserts that Ayla “has
not provided any evidence that Australia, or any other
jurisdiction, is unavailable to adjudicate a trademark dispute
such as this one,” we have held that “[w]hether another
reasonable forum exists becomes an issue only when the
forum state is shown to be unreasonable.” CollegeSource,
653 F.3d at 1080 (citation omitted). Alya Skin “has not
made that showing.” Id.
Though the burden on Alya Skin of litigating this case
under a foreign dispute resolution system may be relatively
high, it does not outweigh Ayla’s interest in adjudicating its
trademark dispute in the United States. The exercise of
jurisdiction over Alya Skin is reasonable and thus satisfies
the demands of due process.

-- 19 of 20 --

20 AYLA V . ALYA SKIN
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Alya Skin is
subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the United States
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Accordingly,
we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Ayla’s complaint.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-- 20 of 20 --