Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo

── Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-10293 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 of 20 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10293 ____________________ FRIDA KAHLO CORPORATION, FRIDA KAHLO INVESTMENTS, S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus MARA CRISTINA TERESA ROMEO PINEDO, an individual, FAMILIA KAHLO S.A. DE C.V., a Mexico corporation, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-22399-DPG ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10293 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 of 20 2 Opinion of the Court 24-10293 Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises out of a dispute over the trademarks of the late, well-known Mexican artist Frida Kahlo and whether the dis- trict court had personal jurisdiction over Defendants Familia Kahlo S.A. de C.V. (“Familia Kahlo”) and Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo. Three years ago, Plaintiffs Frida Kahlo Corporation (“FKC”) and Frida Kahlo Investments, S.A. brought a lawsuit claiming Defendants had violated Florida tort law and the Lanham Act by sending threatening and false cease-and-desist letters to Plaintiffs’ business partners in Florida to stop the use of Frida Kahlo trademarks. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pinedo because of Florida’s cor- porate shield doctrine, and that it lacked personal jurisdiction over both Defendants because the minimum contacts test was not satis- fied. Plaintiffs appealed. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse the district court’s decision. We hold that the corporate shield doctrine does not apply to Pinedo, because the cease-and- desist letters state that they were sent on behalf of Pinedo in her personal capacity. We also hold that the Due Process Clause does not bar personal jurisdiction over Familia Kahlo or Pinedo. This is because the effects test is easily satisfied in this case and because, contrary to the district court’s decision, a tortious cease-and-desist letter can satisfy the minimum contacts test. USCA11 Case: 24-10293 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 of 20 24-10293 Opinion of the Court 3 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Magdalena Carmen Frida Kahlo y Calderon, the Mexican artist known as Frida Kahlo, died in 1954. Pinedo is Kahlo’s grand- niece and is a citizen and resident of Mexico. Familia Kahlo is a Mexican corporation, of which Pinedo is an owner and former of- ficer. Pinedo travels throughout the United States to promote Frida Kahlo at exhibits and events, representing herself and Familia Kahlo. After Frida Kahlo’s death, certain rights to her intellectual property were passed to her niece, Isolda Pinedo Kahlo, and Pinedo. In 2004, FKC, a Panamanian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, was formed to educate, share, and pre- serve the art, image, and legacy of Frida