1-08-0815
13
See, e.g., Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World
Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 940 (7th Cir. 2000); United States Gypsum Co. v. LaFarge North America,
Inc., 508 F. Supp. 2d 601, 643 (N.D. Ill. 2007); FAIP North America, Inc. v. Sistema S.R.L., No.
05 C 4002, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Ill. December 14, 2005). We see no reason why this analysis could
not be used to address specific jurisdiction issues.
Applying that theory, the record discloses that Harry Rosen and Specialty Stores were
engaged in separate, distinct business ventures. Harry Rosen operates what could be described as
menswear department stores across Canada, which offer a variety of different styles and brands
of menswear. Those stores operate under the name Harry Rosen. In contrast, the SSI
subsidiaries operated Hugo Boss boutiques, which sold only the Hugo Boss line. In addition, the
SSI subsidiaries were required to use the Hugo Boss “system” of marketing and selling the
merchandise. Pursuant to that “system,” Hugo Boss, and not Harry Rosen, directed how the
stores would be designed and decorated. Hugo Boss also trained the SSI subsidiaries employees
in Hugo Boss sales and marketing techniques.
With regard to the lease and guaranty transactions that are particularly at issue, we
similarly cannot say that Specialty Stores and SSIOO were acting as Harry Rosen’s agents rather
than conducting their own businesses. Harry Rosen expressly refused to enter into the guaranty,
and Old Orchard accepted that refusal and leased the space to SSIOO anyway. Based on these
facts, we cannot say that Specialty Stores and the SSI subsidiaries were merely conducting Harry
Rosen’s business in the United States. Specialty Stores and the SSI subsidiaries were engaged in
a distinct business venture, which Harry Rosen ultimately sold with no impact on Harry Rosen’s
