Chanel, Inc. v. 21909944

S.D. Florida

Chanel, Inc. v. 21909944

DecidedDecember 5, 2023

Docket0:23-cv-62279

StatusUnknown

This text of Chanel, Inc. v. 21909944 (Chanel, Inc. v. 21909944) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chanel, Inc. v. 21909944, (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-62279-BLOOM/Hunt

CHANEL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

21909944; 21847323; 21905344; 21879839; 21852382; 21764410; 21913489; 21872330; 21906509; 21857356; 21859078; 21856745; 21834387; 16437553; 21841088; 21892958; 21894379; 21911452; 21921743; 21859332; 21907471; 21874612; 21889011; 21860826; 21915473; 21748769; 21843978; 21750756; 21848139; 21806774; 21892147; 21908870; 21860243; 21901404; 21854449; 21840777; 21879896; 21850433; 21771230; 21881431; 21523944; 21910425; 21458755; 21857633; 21806792; 21887778; 21895691; 21923678; 21876143; 21914536; 21691570; 21532811; 21858913; 21860636; 21859012; 20732968; 21679447; 21628702; 21846785; 21912882; 21834406; 21878996; 21842605; 21860918; 21857372; 21749500; 21851961; 21642571; 21834393; 21810784; 21693762; 21889791; 21682283; 21522099; 21523566; 21851428; 21823300; 20813764; 21522211; 21765728; 21856679; 21909929; 21686529; 21858263; 21924627; 21831967; 21834381; 21802980; 21878989; 21409983; 21867725; 20506759; and 21898541, Each an Individual, Business Entity, or Unincorporated Association,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ALTERNATE SERVICE OF PROCESS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff, Chanel, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), ECF No. [6] (“Motion”). In its Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth claims against Defendants for (1) trademark counterfeiting and infringement, (2) false designation of origin, (3) common law unfair competition, and (4) common law trademark infringement. See generally ECF No. [1]. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants promote, sell, offer for sale, and/or

distribute goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and confusingly similar imitations of Plaintiff’s trademarks, thereby infringing Plaintiff’s trademarks. Id. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are accomplishing these infringement activities through various Internet based e-commerce stores operating on the DHgate.com platform under the store identification numbers identified on Schedule “A” hereto (the “Store IDs”). The Court has reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s supporting submissions, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and if otherwise duly advised. Plaintiff contends that Defendants operate via the Internet and utilize electronic means as reliable forms of contact. See ECF No. [6] at 2-4. According to Plaintiff, it has reasonable cause to suspect that Defendants are all residents of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), and/or

redistribute products from sources in that location. Id. at 11. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants have at least one operational form of electronic means of contact, in the form of electronic messaging via DHgate.com’s messaging system, demonstrating that this means of contact is not just effective, but the most reliable means of communicating with Defendants. Id. at 3-5. Consequently, Plaintiff asserts that service through known electronic messaging accounts is the most reliable means of providing Defendants with notice of this action. Id. at 4. Rule 4(f)(3) allows a district court to order an alternate method for service to be effected upon foreign defendants, provided that it is not prohibited by international agreement, and is reasonably calculated to give notice to the defendants. See Brookshire Bros. v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 05-CIV-21962, 2007 WL 1577771, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2007) (“[D]istrict

2 courts have found broad discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize other methods of service that are consistent with due process and are not prohibited by international agreements.” (citing Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916, 921, 927 (11th Cir. 2003))); Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). The plain language of

Rule 4(f)(3) reflects that the decision to issue an order allowing alternate means of service lies within the discretion of the district court. Service by e-mail is not prohibited under international agreement in this case. Although the United States and China are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention”), the Hague Convention does not specifically preclude service of process via e-mail or by posting on a designated website. Where a signatory nation has objected to the alternative means of service provided by the Hague Convention, that objection is expressly limited to those means and does not represent an objection to other forms of service, such as e-mail or website posting.1 Stat Med.

Devices, Inc. v. HTL-Strefa, Inc., No. 15-cv-20590, 2015 WL 5320947, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2015) (noting that an objection to the alternative forms of service set forth in the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 658 U.N.T.S. 16, is limited to the specific forms of service objected to). A court acting under Rule 4(f)(3), therefore, remains free to order alternative means of service where a signatory nation has not expressly objected to those means. See Gurung v. Malhotra, 279 F.R.D. 215, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Accordingly, service by e-mail or internet communication does not violate an international agreement. Further, as Plaintiff has been unable to identify a valid address

1 China has not expressly objected to service via e-mail or website posting. See ECF No. [6-5]. 3 for service of process upon Defendants, according to Article 1 of the Hague Convention, “[the] convention shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.” See Hague Convention, Art. 1, 20 U.S.T. 361 (1969). Rule 4(f)(3) was “adopted in order to provide flexibility and discretion to the federal courts

in dealing with questions of alternative methods of service of process in foreign countries.” In re Int’l Telemedia Assoc., Inc., 245 B.R. 713, 719 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Individual, No. 17-62441-CIV, 2017 WL 8794733, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017) (citing In re Int’l Telemedia Assoc., Inc., 245 B.R. at 720). What constitutes appropriate service varies depending on the circumstances of the case and turns on the court’s determination of whether the alternative method is reasonably calculated to apprise the parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Veles Ltd., No. 06 CV 2988 (GBD), 2007 WL 725412, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007) (citing In re Int’l Telemedia Assoc., Inc., 245 B.R. 713 (N.D. Ga. 2000)).

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for leave to allow service of the summonses, Complaint, and all future filings and discovery in this matter upon each Defendant through the identified messaging accounts and via posting on a designated website. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [6], is GRANTED. 2.

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