United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-2900 CHARLES CURRY, doing business as GET DIESEL NUTRITION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. REVOLUTION LABORATORIES, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:17-cv-02283 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 2020 ____________________

Before RIPPLE, ROVNER, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Charles Curry brought this action pro se 1 in the district court, alleging that Revolution Labora-

1We appointed Professor Allan Erbsen of the University of Minnesota Law School faculty to serve as amicus curiae to argue for the reversal of (continued … ) 2 No. 17-2900 tories, LLC (“Revolution”), Rev Labs Management, Inc. (“Management”), and Joshua and Barry Nussbaum (collec- tively the “defendants”) had infringed and diluted his trademark,2 violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and De- ceptive Practices Act, violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, engaged in false advertising and cyber- squatting, and filed a fraudulent trademark application. 3 Revolution is a limited liability company that is in the business of selling sports nutritional supplements and ap- parel. Management is a corporation that was formed for the sole purpose of being the manager of Revolution. According to Mr. Curry, Joshua and Barry Nussbaum co-founded Revolution and Management. Joshua Nussbaum is the Pres- ident of Management and Revolution; Barry Nussbaum is

( … continued) the judgment of the district court. We thank Professor Erbsen for his ex- cellent brief and oral argument. 2 Mr. Curry asserted trademark infringement claims falling under both the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and common law. 3 The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Curry’s four claims “arising under” federal statutes related to trademarks and unfair competition. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a)–(b). With regard to Mr. Cur- ry’s remaining three claims for fraud, unfair competition, and trademark infringement arising under state law, amicus counsel for Mr. Curry submits that subject matter jurisdiction exists over those claims as well because the state and federal claims share a “common nucleus of opera- tive fact.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), and they are part of the “same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). We agree. Thus, the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. See Ammerman v. Sween, 54 F.3d 423, 424 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A loose factual connection between the claims is generally sufficient.”). No. 17-2900 3 the Director of Management and the Chief Executive Officer of Revolution. The defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Curry’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the 4 action, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction. Mr. Cur- 5 ry timely appealed that decision to this court. We respect- fully disagree with the district court’s ruling and hold that the district court did have personal jurisdiction over Revolu- tion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I.