Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Pinedo: Cease-and-Desist Letters and Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parties

If a foreign company or individual sends a cease-and-desist letter to your business partners in Florida, can you sue them here—even if they've never set foot in the state, have no office here, and sell nothing here? On April 17, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit said yes, in a trademark and publicity-rights dispute over one of the most recognizable names in art history: Frida Kahlo Corporation, et al. v. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, et al. The decision is an important one for any domestic business that finds itself on the receiving end of aggressive threats from a foreign rights claimant—and a cautionary tale for foreign parties who assume they're safe from U.S. litigation as long as they never actually visit.

The Story Behind the Case

Frida Kahlo Corporation and Frida Kahlo Investments, two Panamanian companies, manage trademarks and publicity rights tied to the artist Frida Kahlo, including licensing deals for a traveling exhibition and related merchandise. Their business depended on a network of Florida-based licensees and business partners to run that exhibition and sell branded products.

In 2021 and 2022, Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo—identified in the litigation as Kahlo's grandniece—and her Mexican company, Familia Kahlo, sent cease-and-desist letters directly to those Florida licensees. The letters asserted that Pinedo and her company held superior rights to Kahlo's name, likeness, and trademarks, and threatened legal action against anyone who continued doing business with Frida Kahlo Corporation. According to the plaintiffs, those letters caused business partners to hesitate or withdraw entirely, damaging licensing relationships central to their operations.

Frida Kahlo Corporation sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting claims for tortious interference with advantageous business relationships under Florida law and violations of the Lanham Act.

The District Court Said There Was No Jurisdiction

Pinedo and Familia Kahlo moved to dismiss, and the district court agreed there was no personal jurisdiction over either defendant. The court found two things: first, that the corporate shield doctrine protected Pinedo from being personally haled into a Florida court for actions taken on behalf of her company, and second, that even setting that doctrine aside, the cease-and-desist letters didn't create the minimum contacts with Florida that due process requires before a court can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state, and in this case out-of-country, defendant.

The Eleventh Circuit Reversed

A panel of Circuit Judges Robert Luck, Barbara Lagoa, and Nancy Abudu—with Judge Lagoa writing—reversed and remanded, rejecting the district court's reasoning on both fronts.

The Effects Test Was Satisfied: Courts assessing personal jurisdiction over an intentional tort look to whether the defendant's conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state, caused injury there, and was the kind of conduct the defendant should have reasonably anticipated could result in being sued in that state. The Eleventh Circuit found all three elements present: Pinedo and Familia Kahlo directed their cease-and-desist letters specifically at Florida-based business partners, the resulting harm to licensing relationships was felt in Florida, and threatening legal action against Florida businesses is exactly the kind of conduct that can foreseeably lead to a Florida lawsuit.

Purposeful availment through the letters themselves. The court held that by intentionally directing cease-and-desist letters into Florida—letters that went beyond merely informing recipients of a claim and instead threatened litigation—the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in the state. Because the tortious interference and Lanham Act claims arose directly out of those specific communications, the minimum contacts requirement was satisfied. The court was careful to note that not every communication into a state creates jurisdiction. For instance, a letter that merely provides information, without more, may not be enough. But a letter that threatens legal action and is intended to cause a recipient to alter its business relationships is closer to the threshold for purposeful availment.

The corporate shield doctrine didn't apply. The corporate shield doctrine ordinarily protects an individual from being personally sued in a state based solely on acts performed in their capacity as a corporate officer or agent. That protection didn't help Pinedo here, the court held, because the cease-and-desist letters were explicitly sent on her behalf in her personal capacity, not merely on behalf of her company—an unambiguous signal that she was acting as an individual, not shielded by any corporate role.

On the question of fairness, the court noted that Florida has a strong interest in protecting businesses within its borders from tortious interference, that Pinedo was already engaged in international litigation over the same dispute and so would face no undue burden defending a suit in Florida, and that foreign courts couldn't resolve claims arising specifically under U.S. trademark law.

Why This Decision Matters

For domestic businesses, Frida Kahlo Corporation is a meaningful tool against foreign parties who try to interfere with U.S. business relationships from a safe distance. A rights claimant abroad can no longer assume that firing off aggressive cease-and-desist letters to a company's U.S. partners is a risk-free way to pressure a competitor, since doing so may itself be enough to be sued in the target's home state.

For foreign trademark and rights holders, the decision is a warning to think carefully before sending an enforcement letter into the United States. A letter that goes beyond simple notice—one that threatens litigation and is calculated to make a business partner walk away—can be the very thing that exposes the sender to a U.S. lawsuit it never intended to face. And identifying oneself as acting in a personal capacity, rather than purely on a company's behalf, can strip away the protection the corporate shield doctrine would otherwise provide.

Five Recommendations for Domestic Parties Addressing Lanham Act Claims Against Foreign Entities

1. Preserve every cease-and-desist letter, email, or demand sent to your state by the foreign party. These communications, especially when sent to your licensees, distributors, or business partners, may themselves supply the minimum contacts needed to sue the sender here, so keep them along with proof of who received them and when.
2. Examine exactly how the foreign party identified itself. A letter sent in an individual's "personal capacity," rather than solely on behalf of a company, can defeat a corporate shield defense—look closely at the signature block, letterhead, and any language describing who is acting and in what capacity.
3. Connect the foreign party's forum-directed conduct directly to your claims. Jurisdiction is strongest under the effects test when you can show the communications were intentionally aimed at your state, caused foreseeable injury there, and that your claims—whether tortious interference, Lanham Act violations, or both—arise directly out of those specific communications rather than more general, unrelated conduct.
4. Pair state-law tort claims with your Lanham Act claims where the facts support it. Frida Kahlo Corporation succeeded in part by combining a tortious interference claim under Florida law with its Lanham Act claims, since the same jurisdictional facts supported personal jurisdiction over both.
5. Build a record on fairness and reasonableness from the outset. Be prepared to show your state's strong interest in protecting its own businesses, that defending suit here won't unduly burden a foreign defendant already involved in related litigation, and that no adequate foreign forum exists to resolve claims arising specifically under U.S. trademark law.

Facing a Cross-Border Trademark Dispute?

Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Pinedo shows that geography is no longer a reliable shield for a foreign party that reaches into the United States to threaten a domestic business's relationships. Whether you're trying to establish jurisdiction over a foreign infringer or rights claimant, or you've received an aggressive letter from abroad, the specifics of how that communication was made matter enormously.

Contact Florida IP Attorney at 305-374-8303 or RThornburg@AllenDyer.com to discuss a cross-border trademark or your potential Lanham Act disputes.