MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the Court in this false advertising/deceptive trade practices action, brought pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. and New York state law, is the issue of whether Defendant Brendan Zheng (“Zheng”), who owns Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff RQ Innovasion Inc. (“RQ,” and together with Zheng, “Defendants”), is subject to personal jurisdiction in the instant litigation, commenced by Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Carson Optical, Inc. (“Carson” or “Plaintiff”).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that he is. I. Background2 This action arises from a dispute between two merchants who sell magnification products throughout the United States: (i) Carson, a company located in Ronkonkoma, New York that markets and sells various optical goods, including magnifying lenses; and (ii) RQ, a Canadian corporation owned by Zheng, a Canadian resident, that also sells a variety of devices containing magnifying lenses. See Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”), DE [41],
1-4, 9, 19. Each party asserts two causes of action based on the claim that the other overstates the magnification capability of its products: (i) false advertising pursuant to Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125; and (ii) unfair and deceptive trade practices under New York state law. See generally Amended Complaint; Amended Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, DE [49] (the “Counterclaims”). These misrepresentations, each party contends, influence consumers’ purchasing decisions and, in turn, cause the other to be damaged by an unlawful competitive disadvantage. See Amended Complaint