Global Equipment Company Inc v. Global Storage Equipment Manufacturer Limited

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01269
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC., CASE NO. C25-1269-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE 9 v. SERVICE AND RE-NOTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10 GLOBAL STORAGE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER LIMITED, et al., 11

Defendant(s). 12

13 In its complaint for trademark infringement and other related claims, Plaintiff Global 14 Equipment Company Inc. (“Global Equipment”) describes itself as “one of America’s leading 15 distributors of industrial equipment and supplies,” and contends that Defendant Global Storage 16 Equipment Manufacturer Limited (“GSE”) “appends generic industrial terminology” to Global 17 Equipment’s trademark, “markets its product in virtually the same channels[,]” and “uses a logo 18 that closely resembles [Global Equipment’s] branding in both color and commercial impression.” 19 Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 5. Global Equipment’s complaint, filed on July 7, 2025, also claims that 20 Defendants Certified Warehouse Equipment Inc. and All Lift Warehouse Solutions Inc. 21 coordinated with GSE to market GSE’s infringing goods in the United States. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 27. 22 23 24 1 On July 14, 2025, Global Equipment filed an ex parte motion for a preliminary injunction 2 and alternative service. Dkt. No. 8.1 Although Global Equipment has mailing addresses for 3 Defendants, which are Chinese and Canadian entities (see Dkt. No. 3), Global Equipment seeks 4 Court approval to serve the summons, complaint, and the preliminary injunction motion on 5 Defendants via email. Dkt. No. 8 at 29. Although Global Equipment could serve Defendants in 6 compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial 7 Documents, it emphasizes that Defendants have not responded to cease-and-desist letters mailed 8 to them and that Defendants’ advertisements suggest that they prefer digital and online 9 communication for business purposes. Dkt. No. 9 ¶¶ 13–14, 22–23. Accordingly, in the interest 10 of expediting this litigation, Global Equipment requests leave to serve Defendants via the email 11 addresses associated with each of their selling accounts. See Dkt. No. 8-2 at 3. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) governs service of process on foreign corporations

13 and states that foreign corporations may be served “in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for 14 serving an individual” in a foreign country. Rule 4(f) provides three separate means to complete 15 international service; one is not preferred over another. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 16 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). Global Equipment seeks to serve Defendants under Rule 17 4(f)(3), which permits service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the 18 court orders.” The Ninth Circuit requires that service under Rule 4(f)(3) satisfies three 19 requirements: (1) it “must not be prohibited by international agreement”; (2) it “must comport with 20 constitutional notions of due process”; and (3) “the facts and circumstances of the present case 21 necessitate[] the district court’s intervention.” Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1015–16. The district court 22

24 1 This order refers to docket entries by their CM/ECF page numbers. 1 retains “discretion … to balance the limitations of email service against its benefits in any 2 particular case.” Id. at 1018. 3 Here, the three requirements for Rule 4(f)(3) service are satisfied. First, there is no

4 international agreement prohibiting service via email to Chinese or Canadian entities. Second, 5 service by email would comport with due process because it appears that Defendants use email in 6 their business operations, and thus Global Equipment’s emails would be reasonably calculated to 7 notify Defendants of this action and the pending motion. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc. v. Dafang 8 HaoJiafu Hotpot Store, No. C21-0766RSM, 2021 WL 4307067, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 22, 2021) 9 (concluding that service by email would provide sufficient notice where plaintiffs showed that 10 defendants conducted business through the Internet). 11 Third, service by email would allow Global Equipment’s preliminary injunction motion to 12 be resolved in a timely manner. Because Rule 65(a)(1) requires that a preliminary injunction be

13 issued only with notice to the adverse party, permitting service by email here will allow the Court 14 to consider the remainder of Global Equipment’s pending motion more expeditiously than if it 15 were served under the Hague Convention. See FitTrack Inc. v. Hyperzoo Tech. Ltd., No.: 23-CV- 16 536 TWR (NLS), 2023 WL 2705844, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2023) (approving service by email 17 because “the time-sensitive nature of Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction renders it 18 challenging to use traditional means of service to provide Defendants with timely notice of 19 Plaintiff's Motion before the hearing date”). 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Global Equipment’s request to allow alternative service 21 (Dkt. No. 8), authorizing it to serve a copy of the summons and complaint, as well as the motion 22 for preliminary injunction and the associated declaration, on Defendants via email to the verified

23 email addresses associated with their selling accounts as follows: 24 (1) Defendant GSE at sales@global-racking.com 1 (2) Defendant Certified Warehouse Equipment Inc. at mario@cwe.ltd 2 (3) Defendant All Lift Warehouse Solutions Inc. at info@alllift.ca 3 Global Equipment shall file proof of service no later than July 18, 2025. The proof of service shall

4 indicate whether a bounce-back notification of undeliverability was received. 5 The remainder of the motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 8) will be ruled upon 6 after it is ripe, but the clerk is directed to re-note the motion for two reasons. First, the 2026 noting 7 date appears to be in error. See id. at 1 (listing the noting date as August 11, 2025). Second, to 8 account for Defendants’ delayed notice of the motion, and provide them with their full opportunity 9 to respond to the motion, the clerk shall RE-NOTE the motion for August 15, 2025. 10 Dated this 16th day of July, 2025. 11 A 12 Kymberly K. Evanson 13 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24