The underlying fight is over who controls the commercial rights to the name and image of the late Mexican artist Frida Kahlo. Frida Kahlo Corporation, a Panamanian company with its principal place of business in Florida, claims it acquired those rights through a 2005 agreement with Kahlo's heirs and now owns hundreds of trademarks. The defendants — Familia Kahlo S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, and Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, Kahlo's grand-niece and an owner and former officer of Familia Kahlo — dispute that ownership and have been fighting FKC in courts in Panama and Spain.
The immediate trigger for the Florida lawsuit was a campaign of cease-and-desist letters. On July 22, 2022, Familia Kahlo's General Manager Alfonso Durán sent letters to three of FKC's Florida-based licensees — Primo Entertainment LLC, OEG Latino, and Garber IMC — demanding they refrain from participating in any business initiative involving the use of the name or image of Frida Kahlo. On July 25, 2022, a similar letter was sent to Casely, Inc., a licensee and maker of phone covers. The licensees had contracted with FKC to promote and publish walk-through exhibitions titled "Frida Kahlo – The Life of an Icon," including a scheduled Miami stop. The letters warned recipients that they would be held jointly and severally liable for any damages if they did not comply, but identified no specific trademark or copyright registrations.
FKC and co-plaintiff Frida Kahlo Investments, S.A. sued for tortious interference and declaratory relief. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the corporate shield doctrine barred jurisdiction over Pinedo personally and that sending letters alone was insufficient to satisfy due process minimum contacts.
The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Lagoa joined by Judges Luck and Abudu, reversed on both points. On the corporate shield doctrine, the court held it inapplicable to Pinedo because the letters themselves identified Familia Kahlo as acting as Pinedo's representative and twice described Durán or Familia Kahlo as Pinedo's representative — language the court said could not be rebutted by Pinedo's affidavit, which said nothing about the letters at all. The court held that once a plaintiff establishes that a defendant acted individually through an agent, it does not matter for whose benefit she acted.
On due process, the court held that the effects test was easily satisfied: the letters constituted an alleged intentional tort aimed directly at Florida entities to stop a Miami exhibition, causing foreseeable injury in Florida. The court also held that the minimum contacts test was independently satisfied, rejecting the district court's conclusion that sending an infringement letter without more cannot support jurisdiction. The court noted that the letters were allegedly tortious — not merely informative — and that a single tortious act can establish purposeful availment. The court further held that all four fair-play-and-substantial-justice factors favored Florida, including the state's interest in redressing intentional torts harming businesses within its borders and FKC's interest in obtaining relief where it operates.
The court reversed the dismissal as to both defendants and remanded for further proceedings.