Plaintiff developed and marketed software used for the maintenance of hospital equipment under several marks, including AIM SM and TAKEAIM SM. Defendant was founded by a former co-owner of plaintiff. A “buy-out” agreement allowed the former co-owner to compete freely against plaintiff and to use certain software developed by plaintiff. Defendant used various AIM-formative marks and registered the domain name “takeaim.com.” Plaintiff sued defendant for trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, diversion of corporate opportunity, and conversion. Plaintiff’s conversion claim included an allegation that defendant “stole” the rights to the “takeaim.com” domain name. Defendant moved for summary judgment and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that it did not have supplemental jurisdiction because plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, division of corporate opportunity, and conversion did not share a common nucleus of operative facts with plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims. As to alleged conversion of the “takeaim.com” domain name, the court noted that Texas common law of conversion required the wrongful dominion and control over another’s personal property, and plaintiff failed to identify any authority extending liability for conversion to unlawful control over intangible property such as an Internet domain name.