Jerrel “Kiotti” Brown p/k/a “Radio Boss” v. On the Radar Productions, LLC — Houston recording tour supports specific jurisdiction and venue in trademark suit

Background

Jerrel "Kiotti" Brown p/k/a "Radio Boss" sued On the Radar Productions, LLC ("OTR"), alleging OTR used his "On tha Radar" trademark. Brown, a media personality, said he had used "ON THE RADAR" and "ON THA RADAR" since 2016 across radio, podcasts, video programming, live entertainment, and platforms including YouTube and Instagram, with a strong Houston presence. He filed a trademark application in June 2021, and the USPTO issued Registration No. 7,208,223 for "ON THA RADAR" in October 2023 for International Class 41 services.

OTR, a New York limited liability company distributing entertainment content online and via Power 105.1 (WWPR-FM), said it began using "ON THE RADAR" in 2018. In December 2023, during a multi-city tour, OTR representatives spent four days in Houston recording 75 artists at a local venue, The Closet, using an "ON THE RADAR" neon sign and the email ontheradartour@gmail.com, then published a 75-part series labeled "On the Radar HOUSTON TEXAS EDITION."

In August 2025 OTR petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Brown's registration; Brown answered and filed this infringement action on May 14, 2026, alleging consumer confusion, diverted listeners and customers, lost revenue, and damage to goodwill. OTR moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3); Brown opposed, and the parties filed a reply and sur-reply.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Andrew S. Hanen agreed that OTR was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in Texas—a point Brown did not contest—but found specific jurisdiction. Because the motion was decided without a hearing, Brown needed only a prima facie showing. Worldwide accessibility of an interactive website alone would not establish Texas contacts, but OTR did more: it physically entered Houston, engaged local artists and at least one business, used the disputed mark during recording sessions, solicited Houston artists by email, and published content whose title named Houston and Texas.

The court rejected OTR's attempt to confine the allegedly infringing conduct to its New York publishing, explaining that deciding whether the Texas production and solicitation themselves infringed would require a merits analysis unnecessary on this motion. Brown alleged harm from OTR's use of the mark in activities occurring in, and directly targeting, Houston, so the claim arose at least in part from those contacts; the court also inferred that Brown became aware of OTR's use through the tour and suffered harm in the Houston market.

Exercising jurisdiction was fair and reasonable: OTR's burden litigating away from New York did not outweigh Texas's interest in protecting its citizens' trademark rights, Brown's interest in his chosen forum where the alleged effects occurred, and OTR's demonstrated willingness to travel; OTR identified no prevailing New York interest. Venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the Houston leg of the tour at least partly gave rise to the claim. The court denied OTR's motion in full without deciding whether OTR actually infringed the mark.

Key Takeaways

• A globally accessible website did not supply the decisive contact; OTR's physical production activities and Houston-focused branding distinguished its conduct from merely publishing online material available in Texas.
• The court did not decide whether recording content and soliciting artists constituted trademark infringement, holding only that the alleged Texas activities sufficiently connected the claim to the forum.
• Specific jurisdiction rested on the combined findings of purposeful Houston-directed conduct, a claim arising at least partly from that conduct, and the fairness of requiring OTR to defend in Texas.
• Venue independently satisfied § 1391(b)(2) because the Houston tour stop at least partly gave rise to Brown's infringement claim.
• The denial resolves OTR's jurisdictional and venue defenses, not Brown's entitlement to infringement relief or the validity of his registration in the separate TTAB proceeding.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates how an online entertainment company's offline conduct can support specific jurisdiction when internet accessibility alone would be insufficient. The court focused on deliberate engagement with Houston artists and a business, use of the mark during local sessions, and a series title expressly identifying Houston and Texas.

It also preserves the distinction between jurisdictional allegations and trademark liability. A defendant cannot necessarily defeat jurisdiction by insisting that only its out-of-state publication could infringe when the plaintiff alleges harm from earlier in-forum production and promotion; the court need not resolve that merits question on a Rule 12(b)(2) motion.