contacts in California — namely its interactive website and direct sales to California consumers — resulted in the alleged violation of plaintiffs trademark at issue in this litigation. Therefore, the current action arises out of defendant’s contacts with California” (citation'omitted)); see also, e.g., MCA Records, Inc. v. Charly Records Ltd., No. 95-56250, 1997 WL 76173, *5 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 1997) (Unpub. Disp.) (“But for Records advertisement and sale of Chess recordings, MCA’s rights in those recordings and related trademarks would not have been infringed. Because some of the advertisement and sales activity was directed to California, MCA’s claims arise out of this forum-related activity,” citing Vencedor Mfg. Co. v. Gougler Industries, Inc., 557 F.2d 886, 892 (1st Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>)). D. Whether Exercising Jurisdiction Is
holding opinion testimony of sales should have been excluded because opinion not based on comparable sales holding that it is improper to exercise general jurisdiction when defendants purchases combined with its sales in the forum yielded 129 of its total income holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events holding that defendants conduct amounted to substantial and nonisolated activity within florida for purposes of general jurisdiction where its advertising strategy was designed to generate product sales in florida and its dollar volume of sales was substantial