Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shenzhen Ruobilin Network Technology, Ltd. v. SJG-LESN

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

November 29, 2016

SHENZHEN RUOBILIN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
SJG-LESN, BUY-IT-NOW-STORE.COM, MODERN HOME PRODUCTS, COFFEE AND TOY, DAILY NECESSITY ENTERPRISES, and SERVING YOUR SUCCESS, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge

         In this trademark infringement action, plaintiff Shenzehn Ryobilin Network Technology, Ltd., alleges that defendants, who are all online retailers selling goods on Amazon.com, are selling counterfeit versions of its products. (Compl. (dkt. #1.) For each of the above-named defendants, plaintiff filed a proof of service, for which counsel for plaintiff checked “Other, ” explaining for each:

The defendant has no apparent United States address. The only means of contacting the defendant is through its Amazon Communication system. The summons w[as] served on the Defendant through the Amazon Communication system on June 16, 2016. Amazon has confirmed the receipt of the communication by the defendant.

(Dkt. ##7-1 to 7-5.)

         After the deadline for answering or otherwise responding to the complaint had passed, plaintiff moved for entry of default and default judgment against each of the defendants. (Dkt. #9.) That motion, however, was properly denied by the Clerk of Court because of plaintiff's failure to comply with the service requirements of Rule 4. (Dkt. #13.)

         Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), plaintiff now seeks a court order, as it must, allowing electronic service of these foreign defendants. (Dkt. #14.) Rule 4(f) provides in pertinent part:

(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual--other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed--may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;
(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:
(i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or
(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.