to its present location at Fla. Stat. § 48.193(l)(a)(2). However, the amendment did not alter the language of the provision or change its substance in any way. 8 . Other courts describe trademark .infringement as a tort. See, e.g., Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir.2010) ("Trademark infringement is ... a tort.”); Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 720 (9th Cir.2004) ("[Tirade-mark infringement generally sounds in tort.”); Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1388 (8th Cir.1991) ("Infringement of a trademark is a tort.”). 9 . The Florida Supreme Court has, without expressly adopting or rejecting it, acknowledged this' Court’s interpretation. See Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So.3d 1201 (Fla.2010) (<HOLDING>). 10 . We recognize the existence of the
recognizing that discrimination causes injury to the whole community recognizing that personal jurisdiction of federal courts of course may be grounded in state longarm or other jurisdiction statutes in civil rico cases holding that under delawares longarm statute the act of mailing for purposes of subsection c3 is complete when the material is mailed even if the mailed material causes tortious injury within delaware recognizing that federal courts have held that the commission of a tortious act out of state that causes injury to an instate resident satisfies floridas longarm statute holding that the alleged fraudulent communications satisfy the causes tortious injury by an act or omission in this state portions of the ohio longarm statute