Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06572/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06572-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRIENDFINDER INC., et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-06572 JSW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART,

DENYING IN PART, AND

DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC

MAIL SERVICE UNDER

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 4(f)(3)

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to authorize

electronic mail service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) filed by Plaintiff

Williams-Sonoma Inc.’s (“WSI”). None of the defendants have filed briefs in opposition to

WSI’s motion. On April 4, 2007, the Court requested additional briefing from WSI, which was

filed on April 13, 2007. Having considered WSI’s pleadings, the lack of opposition, relevant

legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition

without oral argument and HEREBY VACATES the hearing set for April 20, 2007. The case

management conference shall remain on calendar on April 20, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. 

BACKGROUND

On October 20, 2006, WSI filed this action alleging, inter alia, the named defendants for

trademark infringement. WSI filed its Amended Complaint on January 5, 2007. In its

Amended Complaint, WSI seeks relief to prevent the named defendants from using variants of

its 

Case 3:06-cv-06572-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

POTTERY BARN family of marks in source code and metatags, which are used to direct 

internet users to sexually explicit websites. WSI alleges that the named defendants, many of

whom are foreign, are the registered owners of these websites. WSI attests that it has attempted

to effect service on the named defendants but has been unable to do so, in some instances

because physical addresses are incorrect or because the defendants have refused to accept

service. (See Declaration of Timothy Cahn, ¶¶ 3-11.) WSI maintains, however, that with the

exception of one defendant, it has been able to communicate effectively with defendants via

electronic mail. Accordingly, WSI moves the Court to permit it to effect service on defendants

via electronic mail or by international mail. 

ANALYSIS

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign

business entity in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for individuals.” Rio Properties, Inc. v.

Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Rule 4(f), in turn, sets forth the

manner in which a plaintiff may effect service on an individual not within any judicial district

of the United States. Rule 4(f)(3) provides that service may be effected “by other means not

prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court.” 

Under the plain language of Rule 4(f)(3), a plaintiff must show that the “other means” is

not prohibited by international agreement and must obtain a court order to effectuate service in

the desired fashion. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014; Nanya Techn. Corp. v. Fujitsu Ltd.,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5754 at *17 (D. Guam. Jan. 2, 2007) (granting motion to effect service

by email and international mail on Japanese defendant). In addition, the method of service

authorized by the Court “must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Rio

Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016. In Rio Properties, the Ninth Circuit also stated that as long as

service under Rule 4(f)(3) is “court-directed and not prohibited by an international agreement,

service of process ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws

of the foreign country.” Id. at 1014.

Although, the Ninth Circuit also has stated a plaintiff must obtain court approval before

attempting to effect service Rule 4(f)(3) before service will be considered effective, a plaintiff is

Case 3:06-cv-06572-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 WSI attests that with respect to defendant Privacy Protect, Inc., which has a

physical address located at 14781 Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas, that defendant claims to

be a Belize company operating out of India. (Id. ¶ 7.) It is not clear to the Court whether

WSI is asking for Court relief at this time as to this defendant, and to that extent the Court

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE WSI’s motion. If additional information is gathered, WSI

may renew the motion, so that the Court may determine if electronic service or service by

another method would be reasonably calculated to apprise this defendant of the pendency of

this action. 

3

not first required to attempt service under Rule 4(f)(1) or Rule 4(f)(2). See Brockmeyer v. May,

383 F.3d 798, 806 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding plaintiff did not effect service properly where they

failed to obtain court approval prior to serving via mail); Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016.

In this case, the Court concludes that the circumstances warrant alternative service. 

WSI has presented evidence that physical addresses for a number of the named defendants

cannot be located or that defendants have refused to accept service. WSI also has established

that the email accounts they have for defendants have been effective means of communicating

with the defendants, which would serve the purposes of ensuring the defendants receive

adequate notice of this action and an opportunity to be heard. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at

1016-17 (finding that service via electronic mail was “method most likely to reach” defendant

and concluding district court did not abuse discretion in authorizing service via email).

According to the information WSI has gathered, the named defendants are located in the

Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Israel, Switzerland, the Philippines, Norway, Canada, India and

England.1 With the exception of India and the Philippines, these countries are signatories to the

Hague Convention. (See Cahn Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. A.) The Court concludes that WSI has

demonstrated that service via email is not prohibited by an international agreement. In Rio

Properties, the Ninth Circuit stated that “as long as court-directed and not prohibited by an

international agreement, service of process ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in

contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014. Plaintiff’s

supplemental briefing did not uncover any express prohibitions against email service. 

Accordingly, WSI’s motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to effectuate service via email.

However, with respect to WSI’s request to permit service by international mail, the

Czech Republic, Norway, Switzerland and the Ukraine do object to service via postal channels. 

Case 3:06-cv-06572-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

As such, to the extent WSI seeks authorization to effect service on defendants located in those

countries by mail, WSI’s motion is DENIED. 

Accordingly, WSI’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT WSI IS GRANTED LEAVE TO serve the amended

complaint and summons on the following defendants in the manner specified herein:

1. Defendants Unimaster Ltd. and Andrej Korchev at sysgen@porn-host.org;

2. Defendants YetisCash, Ales Lexico, and Vladimir Techl at

lexico@yetisagency.com and ladis.oz@centrum.cz;

3. Defendant David Greenwald at David.Greenwald@fatbares.com; 

4. Defendant Sweethelda Ballesteros via international registered mail to “Socsargen

County Hospital, Bula-lagao Rd., Larrdaza St., General Santos, General Santos,

9500, Philippines;

5. Defendant Stein Tvedt at pornserve@hotmail.com;

6. Defendant Eddie Morgan at eddiemorgan@hotmail.com and via international

registered mail to Post Office Box 956, Goosebay AOP 1CO, Canada; and

7. Defendant On Line Marketing Service at

webmaster@onlinemarketingservices.biz and via international registered mail to

196 High Road, Wood Green, London N22 8HH, United Kingdom; and

8. Defendant Umesh Chandra Rastogi at jekkippost@yahoo.com.

The Court will also grant WSI leave to serve Defendant Andre Schneider via email, but

it must provide the Court with a proposed Order setting forth Defendant’s email address by no

later than April 27, 2007.

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-06572-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/17/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court is not ratifying actions already taken by WSI. 

WSI must re-serve the amended complaint and summons on the defendants identified above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06572-JSW Document 36 Filed 04/17/07 Page 5 of 5