The case of the day is Anova Applied Electronics, Inc. v. Hong King Group, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 465 (D. Mass. 2020). Anova, a kitchen appliance manufacturer, sued Hong King, a Chinese firm, and other Chinese companies for trademark and trade dress infringement. It sought leave to serve process by email under FRCP 4(f)(3). (more…)
The case of the day is Facebook, Inc. v. 9 Xiu Network (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2019). The image I’ve chosen to go with the post is the virtual bouquet I am sending to Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse, who joins the small number of judges across the country who have begun to get the question of service by email right in cases where the Hague Service Convention applies and where the state of destination has objected to service by postal channels. (more…)
The case of the day is Shelterzoom Corp. v. Goroshevsky (SDNY 2020). It’s the latest in the line of cases I love to hate, stemming ultimately from Gurung v. Malhotra: cases authorizing service of process by email in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention where the defendant is in a country that has objected to service under Article 10. Longtime readers will know this catechism by heart, probably, but just in case, here it is: (more…)
Friend of Letters Blogatory Jeanne Huang of the University of Sydney Law School has a report on a recent Australian case on service by email under the Hague Service Convention.
Recently, in Australian Information Commission v. Facebook Inc., [2020] FCA 531, the Federal Court of Australia (‘FCA’) addressed substituted service and the Hague Service Convention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This case is important on whether defendants located in the US can be served by substituted service instead of following the Hague Service Convention. (more…)
The case of the day is Automobile Lamborghini S.p.A. v. Garcia (E.D. Va. 2020). The claim was that Garcia had been selling counterfeit Lamborghini goods on the internet. Garcia and his lawyer were communicating with the plaintiff’s lawyers, so they were aware of the lawsuit, but efforts to serve Garcia in Argentina via the central authority mechanism failed when, after a year, the Argentine authorities attempted service at Garcia’s known address, only to find it was vacant and under construction. Lamborghini then sought and obtained leave to serve process via email (Argentina objects to service by alternate means under Article 10 of the Service Convention). After the email was sent, Garcia entered an appearance and moved to dismiss; his initial motion to dismiss did not argue insufficient service of process. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, and Garcia failed to answer it. Lamborghini moved for entry of default judgment, and the magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted. (more…)
The case of the day is Zanghi v. Ritella (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Francesco Zanghi and Zanghi LLC sued Piergraziano Ritella, Giuseppe Cavallaro, Alessandro Vacca, and Gioia e Vita S.r.L. alleging violations of the securities laws and the RICO Act. “Broadly described, the complaint alleges that defendants defrauded plaintiffs into investing in pizzerias in New York City and Miami.” He served some of the defendants in Italy by FedEx and some by email. The Italian defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. (more…)
The case of the day is Venice PI, LLC v. Galbatross Technologies, LLP (D. Hawaii 2019). The case was for copyright infringement. The relevant defendants were in India. The plaintiff sought a TRO that would have enjoined a domain name registrar not to transfer domain names that the plaintiff alleged were owned by the defendants to a registrant outside the United States. Although the defendants had not appeared, the Court asked whether the plaintiff had properly effected service of process on them. (I am going to ignore the issue about whether service of process is required before a court can grant a TRO or a preliminary injunction). The plaintiff said it had served process by email and that the service was proper under Order V, Rule 20(1), of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure. (more…)
The case of the day is Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal A.S. v. International Technology & Knowledge Co. (W.D. Pa. 2019). The claim was on a sales contract: Habas Sinai claimed that ITK and Intekno Teknoloji Transfer Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. failed to deliver goods as agreed, requiring Habas Sinai to buy replacements at a higher cost. INK was a Pennsylvania corporation, but its CEO, Halil Kulluk, was in Turkey. Habas Sinai moved for leave to serve process on INK via email sent to Kulluk. (more…)
Readers, the Hague Conference on Private International Law is hosting a conference on the use of IT in connection with the Hague Service Convention. The conference is the first in a planned series called “HCCH a|Bridged,” which are meant to be more informal than meetings of the Special Commission. The event will be held on December 11 at the Academy Building, on the grounds of the Peace Palace. I’ll be speaking on the first panel, titled “The Prism: The Tech Battle for e-Service.” It looks to be a useful and thought-provoking event! The HCCH is accepting registrations of interest here. Check it out!
(more…)
The case of the day is NOCO Co. v. Khaustov (N.D. Ohio 2019). NOCO accused Yan Khaustov of trademark infringement because he was selling alleged knockoffs via Amazon. The question was whether the court should authorize NOCO to serve process on Khaustov, in Russia, via email. (more…)
Please subscribe to our “Clients and Colleagues” newsletter, which we typically send approximately quarterly, and to Letters Blogatory, the award-winning blog on international judicial assistance, which is updated more regularly.
