Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01960/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01960-6/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

NICHOLAS ASSEF, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOES 1-10,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01960-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 

SERVE DOE DEFENDANTS BY EMAIL

Re: Dkt. No. 24

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Nicholas Assef and Lincoln Crowne & Company (“Lincoln Crowne”)

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Does 1-10 (“Defendants”) for trademark 

infringement and defamation. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs now move for leave to serve 

Defendants by email and by posting to a blog allegedly maintained by Defendants. Appl., Dkt. 

No. 24. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered Plaintiffs’ position, relevant legal authority, 

and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for the following 

reasons.

BACKGROUND

Lincoln Crowne is an investment bank that provides advice on corporate transactions and 

strategic engagements. Compl. ¶ 7. Assef is its founder and executive director. Id. ¶ 9. Lincoln 

Crowne owns the following trademarks (collectively, the “Lincoln Crowne Trademarks”): Lincoln 

Crowne & Company (USPTO Reg. No. 4107955); Lincoln Crowne & Company (Australian Reg. 

No. 1423961); Lincoln Crowne (Australian Reg. No. 1423960); lincolncrowne (Australian Reg. 

No. 142175). Id. ¶ 7. Additionally, Lincoln Crowne owns and has operated a website located at

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 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

lincolncrowne.com. Id. ¶ 8.

Plaintiffs’ case concerns a blog located at www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com (the “Blog”), 

which was posted in 2007. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14; Declaration of Emily F. Evitt (“Evitt Decl.”) ¶ 2, Dkt. 

No. 24-1. The Blog bears the heading, “Beware Lincoln Crowne & Company” and the 

subheading “Warning Warning Warning – Nick Assef.” Compl. ¶ 12 & Ex. A (copy of 

www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com). The text of the Blog includes unsubstantiated personal 

attacks on Assef, as well as on his company. Id. (both). Defendants used Lincoln Crowne’s

trademark as their Blogger username, and thus “LINCOLNCROWNE” appears both in the Blog’s 

URL and on the Blog itself under the heading “About Me.” Id. Defendants have no affiliation 

with Plaintiffs and had no authorization to use the Lincoln Crowne Trademarks. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 

14. 

Defendants originally posted the Blog on or about May 25, 2007. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs 

allege Defendants are individuals who were upset about the performance of a private investment 

and posted false statements on the Blog in retaliation. Id. ¶ 13. When one types “Lincoln Crowne 

blogspot” or “Nicholas Assef blogspot” into the search engine Google, the Blog appears on the 

first page of search results. Evitt Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A (copies of search results). Plaintiffs allege the 

Blog has caused and is continuing to cause damage to their reputations, including the loss of 

clients, significant revenue, and their ability to recruit employees. Compl. ¶ 19; Evitt Decl. ¶ 4. 

Assef has submitted over 30 complaints to Google requesting removal of the Blog, but 

Google repeatedly refused to remove it. Compl. ¶ 14; Evitt Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. B (copies of emails 

from Google to Assef). On or about January 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a defamation lawsuit against 

Google in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia. Compl. ¶ 15. In response to the 

Australian lawsuit, on or about January 18, 2014, Google removed the Blog across all Blogger 

domains. Id. However, in or around September 2014, Plaintiffs discovered that Google had 

reinstated the Blog in the .com domain. Id. ¶ 16. Thus, although the Blog is no longer available at 

the Australia-specific URL www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com/au, it is viewable at the primary 

URL www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com. Id. Plaintiffs allege Google now refuses to take down 

the Blog without a U.S. court order. Id. ¶ 17.

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 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

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on April 30, 2015 to seek redress for Defendants’ conduct. Id. ¶ 

1. When Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, they were unaware of Defendants’ identities, and therefore 

sued them as Does 1-10. Plaintiffs have since attempted to determine who posted the anonymous 

Blog. Evitt Decl. ¶ 7. After filing the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave 

to take limited immediate discovery to determine Defendants’ identities. Dkt. No. 8; Evitt Decl. ¶ 

8. The Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application and issued an order permitting them 

to serve a subpoena on Google “to obtain the Defendants’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, 

and email addresses, as well as documents sufficient to identify the IP addresses used to create, 

operate, and access the Blog . . . .” Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiffs served a subpoena on Google and in its 

response, Google provided the Gmail email address used to register the Blog: 

lincolncrowne@gmail.com (the “Gmail Address”). Dkt. No. 16; Evitt Decl. ¶ 8. 

As Google also operates Gmail, Plaintiffs filed a second ex parte application and sought 

leave from the Court to serve a second subpoena on Google. Dkt. No. 16. The Court granted 

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application on October 27, 2015 (Dkt. No. 17), and that same day Plaintiffs 

issued a subpoena to Google. Dkt. No. 18. In its response, Google disclosed a Yahoo email 

address—nick@yahoo.com (the “Yahoo Address”)—for the user who created the Gmail Address 

that had been used to register the Blog. Evitt Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently emailed 

the Yahoo Address and the Gmail Address, asking if Defendants would accept service of the 

Complaint or contact Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss the case. Evitt Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. D (copy of 

email). However, Plaintiffs’ counsel received a bounce-back from the Yahoo Address stating the 

email address did not exist. Evitt Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. E (copy of bounce-back notification). 

Plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive a bounce-back from the Gmail Address, but Defendants did not 

respond to Plaintiffs’ email. Evitt Decl. ¶ 10.

Additionally, in its second subpoena response, Google provided the IP address used to 

create the Gmail Address (the “IP Address”). Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs’ counsel traced the IP address to 

Singapore. Id. & Ex. F (copy of IP Address lookup). Assef then researched the IP Address and 

traced it to a large public area in Singapore (circa 90 Bras Basah Road, Singapore), an area that 

features a number of food outlets that offer free wireless Internet. Id. ¶ 12 & Exs. G-I (copies of 

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 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

the IP Address Location Report created by Assef on the website ipaddresslocation.org, the map for 

the Esplanade MRT station that is available from the website streetdirectory.com, and a Google 

map for 90 Bras Basah Road, respectively). Based on the Singapore IP Address used by 

Defendants, as well as Plaintiffs’ own location in Australia, Plaintiffs have determined that 

Defendants are likely based outside the United States, in Singapore or Australia. Appl. at 4.

Plaintiffs bring this ex parte application seeking leave to serve Defendants by email and 

posting to the Blog, arguing that unless the Court grants this request, they will have no redress 

from the alleged infringing and defamatory speech that they have been trying to remove for nearly 

nine years. Appl. at 1. Although they have made efforts to identify and locate Defendants, they 

contend the only available means to contact them is by email because Defendants have actively 

concealed their identities. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) sets forth methods for serving an individual in a 

foreign country, such as via the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Convention”), by means prescribed by the law of the foreign 

country, or by letters rogatory. Specifically, Rule 4(f)(3) states: “Unless federal law provides 

otherwise, an individual . . . may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United 

States: . . (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.”1 A 

plaintiff need not attempt service by another method before seeking leave from the Court to serve 

defendant pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3); plaintiff must only “demonstrate that the facts and 

circumstances of the present case necessitate[] the district court’s intervention.” Rio Props., Inc. 

 

1

The other methods of service of an individual in a foreign country are: “(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 signed receipt.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(f).

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 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

v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming propriety of service of 

process by e-mail). 

“As obvious from its plain language, service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the 

court; and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. No other limitations are evident from the 

text.” Id. at 1014. While Rule 4(f)(3) gives the court discretion to “craft alternate means of 

service,” such means still must comport with constitutional notions of due process. Id. at 1016. 

“To meet this requirement, the method of service crafted by the district court must 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.’” Id. at 1016-17 (quoting Mullane v. 

Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).

DISCUSSION

The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the requirements for alternative service 

under Rule 4(f)(3). First, based on their service efforts to date, Plaintiffs have learned that 

Defendants are likely based in either Singapore or Australia. The Gmail Address used to create 

the Blog was created from the IP Address in Singapore. Plaintiffs, in turn, are based in Australia, 

as are their customers; thus, there is also a chance that Defendants are in Australia. Even though 

Plaintiffs do not have Defendants’ precise location, a defendant’s location need not be known with 

certainty to authorize service under Rule 4(f)(3). Wilens v. Automattic Inc., 2015 WL 498745, at 

*5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015) (granting leave to serve anonymous Doe defendant by email where 

defendant “appear[ed] to be located in Russia”). Neither Singapore nor Australia is party to an 

international agreement prohibiting service by email. Australia is a member of the Hague 

Convention, which does not prohibit service by email. See Hague Conf. on Private Int’l Law, 

Status Table 14, http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=17 (last visited 

Mar. 28, 2016); Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC, 2012 WL 1038752, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 

2012) (collecting cases). Singapore is not a member of the Hague Convention, but the Court is 

unaware of any international agreement prohibiting service by email there. See United States v. 

First Coast Meat & Seafood, 30 C.I.T. 1377, 1378 (2006) (noting that Singapore has not “acceded 

to the Hague Service Convention). Regardless, “because [Defendants] physical addresses are 

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 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

unknown, the Hague Convention does not apply.” Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2015 WL 

1743393, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015) (citing Hague Service Convention Art. 1, 20 U.S.T. 361, 

658 U.N.T.S. 163; Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. v. Sheng Gan, 2012 WL 122862, at *3 (D. Colo.

Jan. 17, 2012) (holding that the Hague Convention does not apply to defendant who lived in China 

and whose address was unknown); United States v. Distribuidora Batiz CGH, S.A. De C.V., 2011 

WL 1561086, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2011)). 

Second, Plaintiffs have taken diligent measures to determine Defendants’ identities. 

Plaintiffs served multiple subpoenas and traced the IP address at issue, but were unable to 

determine Defendants’ identities. Plaintiffs subpoenaed Google about the Blog page and obtained 

the Gmail Address, after which they subpoenaed Google again for information about the Gmail 

Address and received the Yahoo Address and the IP Address. The Yahoo Address bounced back 

and the IP Address traced to a public area in Singapore. Thus, it appears Plaintiffs’ only means of 

contacting Defendants is via the Gmail Address. See Goes Int’l, 2015 WL 1743393, at *3

(permitting service by email where plaintiff “sent test emails to this address and did not receive 

any notification that the emails were not delivered.”). 

Third, service via email to the Gmail Address and posting to the Blog is “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.” Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1016 

(citations and quotation omitted). As discussed above, email to the Gmail Address and posting to 

the Blog is Plaintiffs’ only available means of contacting Defendants. Such service is reasonably 

calculated to give notice under the circumstances because it appears Defendants may have actively 

concealed their identities. If Plaintiffs are not granted leave to serve the Complaint by email, they 

will have no means to proceed with this case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application. Plaintiffs 

shall serve the Summons and Complaint on Defendants by sending an email to the email address 

lincolncrowne@gmail.com and by posting a link to the Summons and Complaint to the blog page 

located at www.lincolncrowne.blogspot.com. Plaintiffs shall file proof of service by these 

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 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

methods by April 25, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01960-MEJ Document 25 Filed 03/28/16 Page 7 of 7