Amazon.com Inc v. Abdyrakhmanova

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 10, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-01646
StatusUnknown

This text of Amazon.com Inc v. Abdyrakhmanova (Amazon.com Inc v. Abdyrakhmanova) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amazon.com Inc v. Abdyrakhmanova, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 AMAZON.COM INC, et al., CASE NO. C23-1646-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX 9 v. PARTE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 10 ZHUMABUBU ABDYRAKHMANOVA, et al., 11

Defendant(s). 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on an ex parte motion filed by Plaintiffs Amazon.com 14 Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and the Procter & Gamble Company requesting leave to 15 complete service of process by email on Defendants. Dkt. No. 11. For the following reasons, the 16 Court grants the motion. 17 Plaintiffs filed this action in October 2023, alleging claims for trademark infringement, 18 false designation of origin, and false advertising under the Lanham Act; violations of the 19 Washington Consumer Protection Act; and breach of contract. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs’ claims are 20 based on allegations that Defendants sold counterfeit Procter and Gamble products through 14 21 Amazon selling accounts. See id.; Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 4. In creating those selling accounts, Defendants 22 registered email addresses with Amazon and those email addresses are the primary means of 23 communication from Amazon to Defendants. Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 5. 24 1 Plaintiffs’ investigation of the selling accounts associated with Defendants suggests that 2 Defendants reside in Austria, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Georgia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Dkt. 3 No. 12 ¶¶ 2–5. Plaintiff’s investigation further suggests that Defendants provided misleading or

4 fraudulent documents when registering their selling accounts, which has made it impossible for 5 Plaintiffs to confirm physical addresses for Defendants, although they have been able to confirm 6 functional email accounts for them. Id. ¶¶ 2–8. Plaintiffs therefore request leave from the Court 7 to complete service of process by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Dkt. No. 8 11. 9 A person located outside the United States may be served by “means not prohibited by 10 international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The Court is aware of no 11 international agreement prohibiting service by email on defendants residing in Austria, 12 Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Georgia, Turkey, and Ukraine. To the contrary, the Hague

13 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents does not prohibit 14 service by email on defendants residing in signatory countries, which include Austria, the Republic 15 of Georgia, Turkey, and Ukraine. See Contracting Parties, Hague Conference on Private 16 International Law, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status- 17 table/?cid=17 (last visited Jan. 10, 2024). Although Kyrgyzstan is not a signatory to the Hague 18 Convention, courts have authorized service by email on defendants residing there. See, e.g., Kyjen 19 Co., LLC v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on 20 Schedule AR to the Complaint, 23 Civ. 612 (JHR), 2023 WL 2330429 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2023); 21 Chanel, Inc. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, Case 22 No. 20-60519-CIV-SMITH, 2020 WL 3272325 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2020).

23 Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated an inability to confirm physical addresses for 24 Defendants but appear to have functional email addresses for them, and because Defendants have 1 made email their preferred form of contact with Plaintiffs, the Court exercises its discretion to 2 authorize service by email because it is reasonably calculated to provide Defendants with actual 3 notice. Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion (Dkt. No. 11) is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiffs may serve

4 Defendants by email as described in their motion (Dkt. No. 11 at 7–8) and shall provide the Court 5 with confirmation of completed service by email. 6 Dated this 10th day of January, 2024. 7 A 8 Kymberly K. Evanson 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Amazon.com Inc v. Abdyrakhmanova, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amazoncom-inc-v-abdyrakhmanova-wawd-2024.