Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05824/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05824-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

DISCORD, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DISCORD SOUND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05824-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 11, 12

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Discord, Inc.’s Motion for Order Allowing 

Alternative Service. See Dkt. No. 7. The Court held a case management conference on December 

17, 2019, and directed Plaintiff to file supplemental declarations, including (1) the email 

exchanges between counsel and Defendants Chun Hin Chan and Discord Sound; and (2) the 

efforts the private investigator took to locate an address for Defendants. See Dkt. No. 10. Having 

reviewed the supplemental declarations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for alternative 

service.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this trademark action on September 19, 2019, regarding its Discord app for 

computers and phones. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s 

Discord mark through their website discordsound.com, which sells wireless earbuds. See id. at 

¶¶ 19–24. Plaintiff has identified some examples of actual confusion, where customers asked if 

Plaintiff made the wireless earbuds. See id. ¶¶ 24–25.

Prior to filing the complaint, Plaintiff hired a private investigator to identify a physical 

address for Defendants. See Dkt. No. 12. The investigator searched publicly available 

information, including Defendant Discord Sound’s Facebook and Indiegogo websites, which 

Case 4:19-cv-05824-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 5
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

indicated that Defendants were “based out” of San Francisco. See id. at ¶ 3. However, he could 

not find a specific physical address for either Defendant. Id. Subsequently, the investigator 

submitted email requests through Defendant Discord Sound’s Facebook and Indiegogo websites 

requesting information about the company. Id. at ¶ 4. Indiegogo’s customer service responded by 

providing Defendant Chan’s email address, chan@discordsound.com. See id. The investigator 

then ran database searches on the name and email address, but could not find any additional 

information. Id. Someone named “Katreen” from “Team Discord Sound” also responded to the 

investigator from marketing@discordsound.com, but did not provide a physical address for the 

company or any additional identifying information. See id. at ¶¶ 5–7. Defendant Discord Sound’s 

Facebook page also lists marketing@discordsound.com as the email address for customer 

complaints. See id. at ¶ 9. The investigator also purchased earbuds from Defendants in the hope 

that they might arrive with further identifying paperwork. See id. at ¶ 8. However, to date the 

investigator has not been able to ascertain a legitimate, physical address for Defendants. Id. at 

¶ 10.

In March 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent cease and desist letters to the two email addresses 

that the investigator identified, marketing@discordsound.com and chan@discordsound.com. See 

Dkt. No. 11 at ¶¶ 4–5. The next day, Defendant Chan responded directly to the email from the 

chan@discordsound.com email address, disclaiming any wrongdoing. See id. at ¶ 5. From March 

13 through March 19, 2019, Plaintiff had six email exchanges about this litigation. See id. at ¶ 6–

7, & Ex. A. Plaintiff also emailed Defendants the complaint and related materials in October 

2019, after filing the complaint. See Dkt. No. 11 at ¶ 8. Defendant Chan again responded, and the 

parties exchanged numerous emails in October and November 2019 discussing the dispute. See 

id. at ¶¶ 8–9. On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel discussed this action on the phone with 

Defendant Chan and a representative from Defendant Discord Sound, but they refused to accept 

service. See id. at ¶ 9. The parties have continued to exchange emails using the 

marketing@discordsound.com and chan@discordsound.com email addresses. See id. at ¶ 19. Yet 

Plaintiff has still not been able to serve Defendants using traditional methods.

//

Case 4:19-cv-05824-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 5
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural 

requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 

484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, individuals and corporations 

may be served in a manner that follows “state law for serving a summons in an action brought in 

courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is 

made.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), 4(h)(1)(A). Rule 4 is intended “to provide maximum freedom 

and flexibility in the procedures for giving all defendants . . . notice of commencement of the 

action and to eliminate unnecessary technicality in connection with service of process.” See Elec. 

Specialty Co. v. Rd. & Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 

As this Court is located in California, it may authorize service of process in conformity 

with California law. California Code of Civil Procedure § 413.30 provides for alternative service

“in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served and that 

proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30. Section 

413.30 thus comports with due process, which similarly requires that notice be “reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action 

and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & 

Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 

1016 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests two forms of alternative service: (1) email service and (2) service 

through Defendant’s Facebook account. The Ninth Circuit has expressed some concern with the 

limitations of electronic service, noting that “[i]n most instances, there is no way to confirm 

receipt of an email message.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1018. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit 

has ultimately left the decision “to the discretion of the district court to balance the limitations of 

email services against its benefits in any particular case.” Id.

The Court acknowledges the limitations of email service identified by the Ninth Circuit.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that electronic service is warranted here given the circumstances of 

Case 4:19-cv-05824-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 5
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

this case. Plaintiff has offered evidence that it conducted a diligent and reasonable investigation to 

ascertain a physical address for Defendants, and that electronic service is therefore a last resort. 

The Court also finds that service by email and through Defendant Discord Sound’s Facebook 

account is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. Defendants are engaged in internetbased commercial activities and appear to rely on email as a means of communication with their 

customers. Additionally, Plaintiff has established that Defendants have been responding over the 

course of many months to emails about this lawsuit sent to marketing@discordsound.com and 

chan@discordsound.com, as well as to messages sent via Facebook. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 11 at 

¶¶ 4–10. The correspondence that Plaintiff has attached to its motion indicates that Defendants are

already aware of this litigation and have legal counsel. See id., Ex. A. Under such circumstances, 

electronic service not only appears reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to Defendants, 

but also necessary to ensure Defendants do not intentionally evade service. Accord United Health 

Servs., Inc. v. Meyer, No. C 12-6197 CW, 2013 WL 843698, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)

(collecting cases).

Under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff had until December 17, 2019, to serve Defendants. However, 

“district courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m).” See Efaw v. 

Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court has stated that the “time 

period for service contained in Rule 4(m) ‘operates not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but 

as an irreducible allowance.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661 

(1996)). Moreover, the Court finds that here Plaintiff has acted diligently in investigating a means 

of serving Defendants and in filing this motion to allow alternative service; there is no prejudice to 

Defendants who appear to have actual notice of the lawsuit; and good cause therefore exists to 

extend the time for service.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that within 10 days of the 

date of this order Plaintiff shall serve Defendants with the summons, complaint, and a copy of this 

order: (1) at the marketing@discordsound.com and chan@discordsound.com email addresses; 

and (2) by sending Defendants a link where the materials may be accessed and downloaded via a 

Case 4:19-cv-05824-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 5
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

message to Defendant Discord Sound’s Facebook account. Plaintiff shall by February 14, 2020, 

file proof of service indicating the date, time, and manner of service, including whether any notice 

that the email was not transmitted successfully was received, or a motion for an extension of time 

to serve Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/4/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05824-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 5 of 5