The dispute centers on competing claims over the intellectual property rights of the late Mexican artist Frida Kahlo. Plaintiffs Frida Kahlo Corporation (FKC) and Frida Kahlo Investments, S.A. hold rights to the “Frida Kahlo” brand under a 2005 agreement. Defendants Pinedo, Kahlo’s grand-niece, and Familia Kahlo have disputed FKC’s ownership of these rights, leading to litigation in Panama and Spain.
The immediate catalyst for the federal lawsuit was a series of cease-and-desist letters sent in 2022. Defendants, through Familia Kahlo’s General Manager, sent letters to FKC’s Florida licensees, including Primo Entertainment LLC and Casely, Inc. The letters demanded that the licensees cease participating in business initiatives involving Frida Kahlo’s name or image, warning of joint and several liability for damages.
The district court had dismissed the case, ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pinedo because she was protected by Florida’s corporate shield doctrine. The court also held that the defendants’ actions did not satisfy the minimum contacts test for due process, noting that sending an infringement letter without more was insufficient.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected the corporate shield defense for Pinedo. The court held that the doctrine did not apply because the cease-and-desist letters identified Familia Kahlo as representing Pinedo in her personal capacity as Kahlo’s heiress. Consequently, Pinedo was not acting solely for the benefit of the corporation.
Regarding due process, the court held that the effects test was satisfied. The appellate panel ruled that a tortious cease-and-desist letter can satisfy the minimum contacts test when directed at a forum state. The court found that the defendants’ intentional targeting of Florida licensees established sufficient contacts with Florida.
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion.