Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Limited: Foreign Trademark Holding Companies and U.S. Jurisdiction

A foreign company with no U.S. offices, no U.S. employees, and no direct U.S. sales might seem like an impossible target for a U.S. lawsuit. But on June 10, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit held that a foreign trademark holding company can still be haled into U.S. federal court—based largely on the fact that it registered U.S. trademarks in the first place. Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Limited is an important decision for any trademark owner who has discovered a foreign entity holding conflicting U.S. registrations, and a warning for foreign companies who assume a holding-company structure insulates them from American courts.

The Story Behind the Case

Jekyll Island-State Park Authority operates Summer Waves Water Park on Georgia's Jekyll Island and owns a federally registered trademark for SUMMER WAVES. In 2021, the general counsel for Polygroup Macau Limited—a British Virgin Islands intellectual property holding company—contacted Jekyll Island about purchasing the domain name summerwaves.com. That inquiry led Jekyll Island to discover that Polygroup Macau had registered marks nearly identical to SUMMER WAVES with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Polygroup Macau claimed it conducted little to no business of its own in the United States. But its corporate affiliates manufactured and sold inflatable and above-ground pools and related products bearing the SUMMER WAVES marks through major U.S. retailers, including Walmart, Costco, and Amazon. Jekyll Island sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition and seeking cancellation of Polygroup Macau's registrations.

The District Court Dismissed the Case

Even after permitting jurisdictional discovery, the district court dismissed Jekyll Island's suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over Polygroup Macau. The court concluded that whatever contacts Polygroup Macau had with the United States—its trademark registrations and its affiliates' sales activity—weren't sufficiently, directly connected to Jekyll Island's specific infringement claims to satisfy due process, applying a strict causal connection standard between the defendant's forum contacts and the litigation.

The Eleventh Circuit Reversed

A panel of Circuit Judges Robin Rosenbaum, Barbara Lagoa, and Charles Wilson—with Judge Wilson writing—reversed and remanded on June 10, 2025.

Rule 4(k)(2): the national long-arm statute. Because Polygroup Macau had no meaningful ties to any single U.S. state, the ordinary state long-arm statute analysis didn't fit. Instead, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), sometimes called the national long-arm statute, which allows a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant when the claim arises under federal law, the defendant isn't subject to jurisdiction in any single state's courts, and exercising jurisdiction comports with due process. Because Jekyll Island's claims arose under the Lanham Act and Polygroup Macau conceded it wasn't subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, the case turned entirely on due process—assessed here under the Fifth Amendment, asking whether Polygroup Macau purposefully availed itself of the protections of United States law as a whole, not any one state.

Trademark registration itself as purposeful availment. The court found Polygroup Macau's conduct went well beyond passive ownership. The company held more than thirty active U.S. trademark registrations, had filed more than seventy trademark applications, and had filed at least thirty-four patent applications with the USPTO. It retained U.S. law firms, including firms in Georgia, to prosecute these rights, and had litigated intellectual property disputes in American courts before. Critically, because Polygroup Macau registered the SUMMER WAVES marks under a Lanham Act provision requiring actual use in U.S. commerce, and periodically had to file declarations confirming that continued use to maintain its registrations, the court reasoned the company necessarily relied on—and had to know about—its affiliates' sales of SUMMER WAVES products in the United States.

Looking past the corporate structure. Polygroup Macau argued it had no formal licensing agreement with its affiliates and collected no royalties. The court looked past that denial to the functional reality: affiliated companies operated U.S. distribution centers, sold SUMMER WAVES-branded products through major retailers, and compensated Polygroup Macau for its registration and legal expenses. The court described this arrangement as amounting to either an implied license or an alter-ego relationship, and held that the absence of a formal contract didn't matter where actual control and economic benefit were present.

A flexible "relate to" standard, not strict causation. The district court had required a tight causal link between Polygroup Macau's U.S. contacts and Jekyll Island's claims. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that approach, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, which holds that a claim need only "arise out of or relate to" the defendant's forum contacts—a more flexible connection than strict but-for causation. Polygroup Macau's deliberate registration of the very marks at the center of the dispute, maintained through reliance on U.S. commerce, was connected enough.

Fair play and substantial justice. Finally, the court found no unfairness in requiring Polygroup Macau to defend the suit in the United States. A company that regularly retains U.S. counsel, registers dozens of U.S. trademarks and patents, and has litigated IP disputes in American courts before has, in the court's words, “has continuously and deliberately exploited the United States market” and should reasonably expect to answer for disputes over those very rights here.

Why This Decision Matters

Although Jekyll Island arose out of Georgia's federal court, it's binding precedent throughout the Eleventh Circuit, including Florida, and it meaningfully expands where trademark owners can pursue foreign infringers. A U.S. trademark owner facing a conflicting registration or infringing products traced back to a foreign holding company is no longer automatically out of luck just because that company has no offices, employees, or direct sales in the United States. The act of registering and maintaining U.S. trademarks—which requires an ongoing, affirmative relationship with U.S. law—can itself be enough.

For foreign companies that hold U.S. trademark or patent portfolios through a separate IP holding entity while affiliates handle actual manufacturing and sales, the decision is a significant warning. Courts will look past the formal corporate structure to the underlying commercial reality, and an absence of written licensing agreements or royalty payments won't necessarily prevent a court from treating the arrangement as an implied license or alter-ego relationship for jurisdictional purposes.

Recommendations for Trademark Owners:

1. Investigate the infringer's own U.S. IP portfolio, not just its direct sales. A foreign entity's U.S. trademark and patent registrations, filed and maintained through U.S. counsel, can themselves establish the minimum contacts needed for personal jurisdiction—even when that entity has no offices or direct sales here.
2. Look past the named registrant to its corporate affiliates. Evidence that sister companies distribute products bearing the disputed mark through major U.S. retailers can support an implied-license or alter-ego theory of jurisdiction, even without a formal licensing agreement between the entities.
3. Pull the registrant's maintenance filings and use declarations. Periodic filings confirming continued use in U.S. commerce, required to keep a U.S. trademark registration alive, are themselves evidence that a foreign registrant has an ongoing, affirmative relationship with U.S. commerce and U.S. law.
4. Consider Rule 4(k)(2) when a foreign defendant lacks contact with any single state. This often-overlooked national long-arm statute can reach a foreign IP holding company whose contacts are spread across the country rather than concentrated in one state's courts.
5. Argue for a flexible "relate to" standard, not strict causation. Under Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, a claim only needs to be connected to the defendant's forum-directed conduct, not directly caused by it—a materially easier standard to satisfy than the causal-link test some district courts still apply.
6. Document the registrant's engagement of U.S. counsel. Retention of U.S. law firms, particularly firms located in your intended forum, to prosecute trademark and patent rights is further evidence of purposeful availment and weighs in favor of jurisdiction being fair.
7. Pursue jurisdictional discovery when a defendant claims minimal U.S. contacts. As in Jekyll Island, discovery into a foreign registrant's affiliate relationships, distribution arrangements, and financial ties can reveal a commercial reality very different from what the defendant initially represents.
8. Act promptly once you discover a conflicting foreign-held registration. Jekyll Island filed suit shortly after being approached about its domain name and uncovering Polygroup Macau's registrations, preserving both its substantive trademark rights and a strong litigation position.

Facing a Foreign Trademark Conflict?

Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Limited gives U.S. trademark owners a real path to hold foreign IP holding companies accountable in American courts, but building that jurisdictional case takes careful investigation into registrations, affiliate relationships, and use in commerce.

Have questions whether there is jurisdiction over a Foreign trademark use and/or whether a Lanham Act lawsuit in a Florida Federal Court is appropriate? Don’t hesitate and contact us at RThornburg@AllenDyer.com or call 305-374-8303. We are happy to assess whether there are sufficient minimum contacts under the Florida long arm statute over a company advertising or promoting a trademark or service mark outside of the United States and potential basis for enforcement in the Middle District of Florida or Southern District of Florida.