This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a well-known golf course and resort located in Monterey County, California. P has used 'Pebble Beach' as its trade name for 50 years. P contends that the trade name has acquired secondary meaning in the United States and the United Kingdom. P operates a website located at www.pebblebeach.com . D, a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom occupies and runs a three-room bed and breakfast, restaurant, and bar located in southern England. The name of D's operation is 'Pebble Beach.' D advertises his services, which do not include a golf course, at his website, www.pebblebeach-uk.com . D's website includes general information about the accommodations he provides, including lodging rates in pounds sterling, a menu, and a wine list. The website is not interactive. The website does not have a reservation system, nor does it allow potential guests to book rooms or pay for services online. For a brief time, D worked at a restaurant in Carmel, California, but for the most part, his domicile has been in the United Kingdom. P sued D under the Lanham Act and the California Business and Professions Code for intentional infringement and dilution of its 'Pebble Beach' mark. D moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process. D's motion was granted. P appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.