A federal court in Illinois denied a Canadian distributor and related parties’ motion to dismiss trademark and contract claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and declined to abstain in favor of a pending Canadian action. New Skinny Mixes, LLC v. Hartstein, 2026 WL 1786287 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2026). New Skinny Mixes, LLC, doing business as Jordan’s Skinny Mixes, was the successor-licensor to a trademark license agreement granting Moishe Hartstein’s distribution business a nonexclusive license to use Skinny Mixes’ trademarks to sell its products in Canada. After Skinny Mixes terminated the relationship, Hartstein and the related Canadian entities allegedly retained control of the Canadian Skinny Mixes website and customer contacts, launched a competing product line called Slim Syrups, and sold the products in both Canada and the United States. Skinny Mixes sued in Illinois federal court for Lanham Act violations, breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition while a separate action involving Canadian intellectual property rights remained pending in Canada.
The court found that the agreement’s forum selection clause supported personal jurisdiction over Hartstein and the related Canadian entities at the pleading stage. The clause was enforceable because sophisticated parties had negotiated the agreement at arm’s length, performed under it for more than three years, and presented no evidence of fraud, undue influence, or overreaching. New Skinny Mixes could enforce the clause as the successor to the original licensor (Old Skinny Mixes) because the agreement restricted assignment only by the licensee and did not prohibit Old Skinny Mixes from assigning its rights. Although the agreement had been signed using an assumed business name, the allegations concerning Hartstein’s overlapping entities, assumed names, and their collective performance of the agreement supported a prima facie showing that each was bound by the clause. Personal jurisdiction was also independently supported by recurring sales to Illinois retailers, invoices and shipping records identifying Illinois destinations, and direct communications between the Canadian businesses and Illinois customers. The court declined to abstain because the Canadian action concerned Canadian intellectual property rights and conduct in Canada, whereas the federal action included Lanham Act claims based on United States conduct that the Canadian court could not resolve.