Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01616/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01616-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THERMOLIFE INTERNATIONAL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

https://ronkramermusclebeach.wordpress.com/, 

an Internet domain name; 

https://ronkramermusclebeach.wordpress.com/ 

author/musclebeachkramer/, an Internet 

domain name,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01616-HRL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATE SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Plaintiff ThermoLife International LLC (ThermoLife) filed this action in rem, asserting a 

sole claim for relief under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d). ThermoLife seeks the transfer or cancellation of the registration for 

“ronkramermusclebeach.wordpress.com” and “ronkramermusclebeach.wordpress.com/

author/musclebeachkramer”. These are internet blogs hosted by WordPress.com, which is owned 

and operated by Automattic, Inc. (Automattic).

ThermoLife is an Arizona company that sells dietary supplements. It says that it owns 

federally registered marks for “Muscle Beach” in connection with athletic clothing, business 

consultation services, and health club services. Plaintiff says it also has pending trademark 

applications for “Muscle Beach” in connection with dietary supplements and entertainment 

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 7
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

services. Ron Kramer is ThermoLife’s founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer. 

According to the complaint, he is widely known in the dietary supplement industry and is 

recognized as being affiliated with ThermoLife and the names by which it does business, such as 

“Muscle Beach.”

The subject blogs contain unflattering information and comments, all uploaded on April 

23, 2014, about ThermoLife and Kramer. Plaintiff alleges that the blogs are registered and 

authored by someone being paid by dietary supplement companies to promote dietary supplement 

products and to disparage the Muscle Beach name and products with false and defamatory 

information. ThermoLife says that there is no indication that the blogs currently are active 

because no additional posts were made after the April 23 entries. (Hull Decl. ¶ 4).

ThermoLife moves for use of alternate service of process and a deadline by which 

defendants must respond. Plaintiff also moves for an order waiving service by publication.

Upon consideration of the moving papers, this court grants in part and denies in part 

plaintiff’s motion.

Under the ACPA, service of process in an in rem proceeding requires a court finding that 

the owner of a mark, despite due diligence, is unable to find a person who would have been a 

defendant.1 The owner satisfies due diligence by doing two things: (1) “sending a notice of the 

alleged violation and intent to proceed [with an in rem action] to the registrant of the domain name 

at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar”; and (2) “publishing

notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.” 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)(2)(A)(II)(aa)-(bb). These actions constitute service of process. Id. § 1125(d)(2)(B).

According to ThermoLife, the subject blogs contain no names or other identifying 

information. (Hull Decl. ¶ 3). So, before filing the present lawsuit, plaintiff says it tried to 

ascertain the identity of the blogs’ author, user, or licensee by filing a civil action in Arizona state 

court in September 2014 against a fictional John Doe defendant. In that action, ThermoLife 

 

1

Service may also be effected where the court finds that the owner is not able to obtain in 

personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant. 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(I). This does not apply here because, as will be discussed, ThermoLife has not 

been able to ascertain the identity of any would-be defendant.

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 7
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

served Automattic with a subpoena for documents identifying the blogs’ author, user, or licensee. 

Automattic responded that it had only a single email address: 

becausescience@anonymousspeech.com. (Hull Decl. ¶ 6). Plaintiff says this is because an email 

address is the only personal information WordPress.com requires its users to provide when 

establishing accounts. (Dkt. 1, Complaint ¶ 26).

ThermoLife says it was unable to identify the blogger based on the email address provided 

by Automattic because Anonymousspeech.com, the email provider, does not respond to any 

inquiries about subscribers’ emails and ignores queries about subscribers’ identities. According to 

ThermoLife, the front page of Anonymousspeech.com’s website states:

The most important consideration for the majority of our clientele 

when sending anonymous secure email is his or her personal 

anonymity. While other web-based email services will reveal your 

identity without reservation to an interested private party with 

money, AnonymousSpeech.com will not respond to inquiries made 

by foreign governments or private parties regarding the emails 

sent by its subscribers. Any inquiries regarding the identity of our 

subscribers are ignored. We do not respond to any of them. Our 

servers are constantly moving in different countries (Malaysia, 

Japan, Panama, etc.) and are always outside the US and Europe.

This is a great security advantage for our customers since it makes it 

more troublesome if not impossible for any prosecutors to start a 

legal dispute.

(Hull Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1) (emphasis added).

There being no postal address information for the subject blogger, plaintiff says that it sent 

notice of this lawsuit to the only points of contact it has managed to find: On March 10, 2015, it 

provided pre-litigation notice by email and postal mail to Automattic (via Automattic’s counsel). 

On April 14, about a week after the complaint was filed, ThermoLife sent notice of this suit to the

becausescience@anonymousspeech.com email address provided by Automattic. And, plaintiff

also posted notice of the complaint in the comment section of the subject blogs themselves. (Hull 

Decl. ¶¶ 8-9).2

 

2

Plaintiff’s counsel says that notice of discovery in the Arizona action also was uploaded on the 

blogs’ comment section and that the site claimed that the comment needed to be “moderated.” 

Counsel says that the notice appears on his computer, but does not appear when he accesses the 

blogs from other IP addresses. There is, however, no indication that this also happened with the 

notice of the instant lawsuit uploaded to the blogs’ comment section.

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 7
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff now seeks a court order finding these efforts at service to be sufficient.

With respect to the first due diligence requirement, plaintiff did send notice to the 

registrant’s email address. Although the ACPA also requires notice to be sent to the registrant’s 

postal address, ThermoLife has established that no such address was provided to Automattic. 

And, there is no indication that plaintiff has managed to find a postal address for anyone other 

than Automattic. This appears to be by design, as plaintiff’s motion and supporting papers 

indicate that the registrant has taken steps to maintain anonymity. Under these circumstances, the 

court finds that plaintiff has satisfied this first prong of due diligence. Cf. Guo v. 8bo.com, No. 

13-cv-05299 NC, 2014 WL 2581315 at *2 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2014) (declining to waive the postal 

mailing requirement, even though service by postal mail was likely to be ineffective, where the 

plaintiff had a postal address, provided by the registrant, for an intermediate registrar).

As for the second due diligence requirement, plaintiff “alternatively” moves to waive the 

publication requirement, arguing that publication is entirely discretionary. Courts, however,

disagree whether publication is mandatory, or whether the statutory language requiring publication 

“as the court may direct” gives courts discretion to waive the requirement. 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb) (emphasis added). Compare Banco Inverlat, S.A. v. www.inverlat.com, 

112 F. Supp.2d 521, 523 (E.D. Va. 2000) (concluding that “[t]he presence of the word ‘may’ in § 

(bb) is properly read to mean that the publication requirement is within a court’s discretion, 

meaning that a court may or may not direct notice by publication, depending on the 

circumstances.”) with Shri Ram Mission v. Sahajmarg.org, 139 F. Supp.2d 721, 724 (E.D. Va. 

2001) (concluding that the word “and” between § (aa) and § (bb) means that publication is 

mandatory and that “[t]he discretion afforded by the statute to a district court is merely over the 

manner in which notice may be published (e.g., where notice is published, how often, etc.)”). It 

appears, however, that even when courts have waived the publication requirement, they did so 

only where there was evidence that the registrant had actual notice of the litigation. See, e.g., 

Banco Inverlat, 112 F. Supp.2d at 523 (waiving the publication requirement where postal and 

computer confirmation reports showed that the registrants received notice by postal mail and 

opened plaintiff’s email notice); Con-Way, Inc. v. CONWAYRACING.COM, No. 08-4263 SC, 

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 7
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2009 WL 2252128 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2009) (waiving the publication requirement where the 

registrant responded to plaintiff’s notice by offering to sell the subject domain name).

In the present case, there is no indication that the registrant has received actual notice of 

this suit. Thus, even assuming the publication requirement could be waived, this court would not 

do so. Nevertheless, the court does have discretion as to the manner in which publication is to be 

accomplished. Shri Ram Mission, 139 F. Supp.2d at 724. On this record, it is impossible to know 

where the registrant is located, and it is anyone’s guess whether the registrant is located in this 

district, in this state, or even in this country. As discussed, this appears to be largely due to the 

registrant’s efforts to maintain anonymity. Under these circumstances, the court finds that the best 

means of publication is via the internet to the subject blogs themselves, an action plaintiff says it 

performed months ago.

The court will also require ThermoLife to complete additional online publication as 

follows: Plaintiff shall forthwith (1) send notice of this order to the 

becausescience@anonymousspeech.com email address; (2) post notice of this order to the subject 

blogs, and (3) file a proof of service with the court.

As an added precaution, and although the court cannot be certain how effective it would 

be, plaintiff will also be required to publish notice of this lawsuit in a U.S. national distribution 

newspaper. Plaintiff shall, within 14 days from the date of this order, submit to the court a 

proposed order setting forth a procedure for publication, including proposals for a suitable

newspaper, length of publication, proposed language for the notice itself, and minimum size 

requirements for the notice to be published.

Service of process will be deemed complete only after the additional court-ordered online 

publication requirements are accomplished (as evidenced by the proof of service to be filed with 

the court) and upon the last day of publication of notice in the national distribution newspaper. 

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 7
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Any response to the complaint must be filed with the court no later than 21 days thereafter.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 7
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-01616-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Eric Blair Hull ebh@kflawaz.com, bjb@kflawaz.com, kld@kflawaz.com

Gregory Blain Collins gbc@kflawaz.com

Melinda Mae Morton mindy.morton@procopio.com, calendaring@procopio.com, 

gail.poulos@procopio.com

Case 5:15-cv-01616-HRL Document 20 Filed 06/18/15 Page 7 of 7