Amazon.com Inc v. Weiyuan

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5

6 AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Case No. C23-931-RSM corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES 7 LLC, a Delaware limited liability ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX company; and THERABODY, INC., a PARTE MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 8 Delaware corporation, SERVICE ON DEFENDANT MAO HAIFENG 9 Plaintiffs,

10 v.

11 ZHAO LIMIN, et al.,

12 Defendants.

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com 16 Services LLC, and Therabody, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’ ex parte Motion for Alternative 17 Service to effect service on Defendant Mao Haifeng by email. Dkt. #18. Defendants have not 18 appeared in this matter. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 On June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants, alleging Lanham Act 21 violations for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and false advertising, as well 22 as violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act related to Defendants’ unlawful sale 23 of counterfeit Therabody-branded products in the Amazon store. Dkt. #1. 24 1 While Plaintiffs have initiated service on the other defendants, Plaintiffs have failed to locate a valid physical address for Defendant Mao Haifeng. Dkt. #18 at 2. Plaintiffs conducted 2 investigations into Defendant Mao’s selling account, including obtaining information from 3 payment service providers related to Defendant Mao’s virtual bank accounts linked to the selling 4 accounts. Id. at 4. This information included a physical address, but Plaintiffs’ on-site 5 investigators confirmed that Defendant Mao is not located at the provided address, and the 6 address was not connected to any Defendants. Id. at 5. However, Plaintiffs were able to uncover 7 three emails related to Defendant Mao’s Amazon selling account and virtual bank account. Id. 8 at 5-6. These email addresses are the primary means of communication from Amazon to 9 Defendant Mao. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs state that they have confirmed the email accounts remain 10 active. Id. 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 A. Legal Standard 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides for service of an individual in a foreign 14 country “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give 15 notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention . . .” or “by any other means not 16 prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1), (3). Courts 17 have permitted service by email where it is the only method reasonably calculated to apprise a 18 defendant of the pendency of the action. See, e.g., Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 19 284 F.3d 1007, 1016–18 (9th Cir. 2002); Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Karsen, Ltd., 2011 316966 20 (D. Ariz. 2011). 21 China, like the United States, is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and although the 22 Hague Convention is silent regarding service by email, courts in this district regularly authorize 23 requests for service by email on foreign defendants in countries that are parties to the Convention. 24 1 See, e.g., Amazon.com Inc. v. Sirowl Tech., No. 220CV01217RSLJRC, 2020 WL 7122846, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2020); Will Co. v. Kam Keung Fung, No. 3:20-CV-05666-RSL, 2020 WL 2 6709712, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2020). Here, as in Sirowl and Will Co., Plaintiffs have 3 demonstrated an inability to obtain valid physical addresses for Defendants Mao. Furthermore, 4 Plaintiffs have shown that Defendant Mao conducts business through the Internet such that 5 “service by email will provide defendant[] with sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond.” 6 Sirowl Tech., 2020 WL 7122846, at *3. Accordingly, the Court finds that service by email is 7 appropriate. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative Service on Defendant Mao is therefore granted. 8 IV. CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, after reviewing the relevant pleading and the remainder of the record, the 10 Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion for Alternative Service, Dkt. 11 #18, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are authorized to serve Defendant Mao Haifeng via the following 12 email addresses and should provide confirmation of completed service by email to the Court: 13 a. qisheng0008888@outlook.com; 14 b. huang000703@outlook.com; and 15 c. 190806722@qq.com. 16

17 DATED this 9th day of July, 2024. 18 19 A 20 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21

23 24