Both of these letters bear defendant’s allegedly infringing Mark. The business solicited in these letters related to Techno’s timely filing of paperwork with the Nevada State Department. Plaintiff does not allege that Techno ever responded to either of these two letters or that defendant and Techno have ever engaged in any course of business. The court declines to accept pla holding that subsection (c)(1) of the Delaware long-arm statute “requires that some act must have actually occurred in Delaware.”). To the contrary, defendant’s website clearly explains that its services are only offered in Nevada and defendant’s president has submitted a sworn declaration alleging that defendant only conducts business in Nevada. Plaintiff has not submitted a F.Supp. 1458, 1467 (D.Del.1991) (<HOLDING>) (citing Moore v. Little Giant Industries,
holding that one isolated incident of partially weaving into emergency lane does not constitute a traffic violation in tennessee holding that under federal common law a common carrier is liable for the full extent of the loss to goods it transports unless the loss was caused by particular exceptional circumstances holding that under delawares longarm statute the shipment of goods into delaware by common carrier does not constitute transaction of business especially when the shipment was an isolated incident and no orders resulted from the solicitation holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier