Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02508/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02508-5/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Acushnet Company, a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Thomas Allan Thiede a/k/a Thomas 

Thiede a/k/a Tom Thiede a/k/a Tom T., 

an individual, d/b/a Showcase Studios 

d/b/a Showcase Companies d/b/a 

Showcase Architectural Products d/b/a 

Showcase Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a 

Makeovermygaragedoor.com and Does 

1-10; Dualwin Sporting Goods Co., 

Ltd., an unincorporated foreign business 

entity; Does 1-5 and Does 7-10, 

 Defendants. 

No. CV 12-02508-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for authorization of alternate 

service of process on Defendant Dualwin Sporting Goods Co. (“Dualwin”). (Doc. 40). 

Plaintiff requests that the Court authorize Plaintiff to serve Dualwin with the Summons, 

Verified Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all subsequent filing in this matter 

via electronic mail (“e-mail”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). (Id.). 

 Plaintiff has hired an investigator in the People’s Republic of China to determine 

if Dualwin’s address retrieved from records seized from Defendant Thomas Allan 

Case 2:12-cv-02508-JAT Document 46 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 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 

 2 

Thiede is valid for service of process or if Dualwin has another physical address that is 

valid. Plaintiff’s investigation has revealed that Dualwin falsified its physical address 

data and communicates through e-mail. (Doc. 40 at 4). 

 Rule 4(f)(3) allows service on an individual in a foreign country “by other means 

not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” The Ninth Circuit has 

held that e-mail service upon an online business defendant “was constitutionally 

acceptable.” Rio Props. Inc., v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Further, e-mail service is not prohibited by international agreement pertinent to this 

case as the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial 

Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Convention”) does not apply. See

20 U.S.T. 361 (1969) (“[the] convention shall not apply where the address of the person 

to be served with the document is not known.”). In addition, federal courts have 

routinely authorized international mail and e-mail service notwithstanding the 

applicability of the Hague Convention. See, e.g., Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 

800 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We join the Second Circuit in concluding that the Convention . . . 

does not prohibit service of process by international mail”); Nanya Tech. Corp. v. 

Fujitsu Ltd., CIV 06-00025, 2007 WL 269087, at *5-6 (D. Guam Jan. 26, 2007) (Hague 

Convention, to which Japan is a signatory, did not prohibit e-mail service upon 

Japanese defendant); Popular Enterprises LLC v. Webcom Media Grp., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 

560, 562 (E.D. Tenn. 2004); MPS IP Servs. Corp. v. Modis Commc’ns Inc., 3:06-CV270-VMC-HTS, 2007 WL 723841, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2007) (Hague Convention, 

which Canada is a signatory, did not prohibit e-mail service upon Canadian 

defendants). Finally, The Ninth Circuit has 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 

Props., 284 F.3d at 1014. 

 Accordingly, 

// 

Case 2:12-cv-02508-JAT Document 46 Filed 09/27/13 Page 2 of 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 

 3 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Order Authorizing Alternate 

Service of Process on Defendant Dualwin Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(f)(3) (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve the Summons, Verified 

Complaint, First Amended Complaint and all other current and future filings in this 

matter, upon Defendant Dualwin in this action via e-mail to the e-mail address 

dualwin@yahoo.cn. 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02508-JAT Document 46 Filed 09/27/13 Page 3 of 3