IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, 

INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRANDCAR STORE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-03131 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f)(3) 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), Plaintiff Volkswagen Group of 

America, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) requests this Court’s authorization to serve process by electronically 

publishing a link to the Amended Complaint, the Temporary Restraining Order, and other relevant 

documents on a website and by sending an e-mail to the e-mail addresses identified in Exhibit 3 to 

the Declaration of Dana A. Cizmadia and any e-mail addresses provided for the Defendants by 

third parties that includes a link to said website. Plaintiff submits that providing notice via 

electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defendants receive from payment 

processors, is reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defendants of the pendency 

of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections. 

 Electronic service is appropriate and necessary in this case because off-shore e-commerce 

store operators offering for sale products using counterfeit trademarks typically: (1) provide false, 

misleading and/or incomplete names and physical address information to conceal their locations 

and avoid liability for their unlawful conduct; and (2) rely primarily on electronic communications 

to communicate with their third party service providers and customers, demonstrating the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03131 Document #: 19 Filed: 05/28/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2213
2 

reliability of this method of communication by which the Defendants may be apprised of the 

pendency of this action. See Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio (the “Gaudio Declaration”) at ¶ 2. 

Authorizing service of process solely via e-mail and electronic publication will benefit all parties 

and the Court by ensuring that Defendants receive prompt notice of this action, thus allowing this 

action to move forward expeditiously. Absent the ability to serve Defendants in this manner, 

Plaintiff will almost certainly be left without the ability to pursue a final judgment. 

 Likewise, an investigation of the e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases 

identified in Schedule A to the Amended Complaint shows that few, if any, provide a physical 

address on the e-commerce store. Gaudio Declaration at ¶ 5. In most instances, Defendants must 

provide an e-mail address and physical address to third-party online marketplace platforms such 

as eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, and Dhgate when registering their account. Id. 

However, unlike an e-mail address, which is typically verified by the third-party online 

marketplace platforms, no verification typically occurs for physical addresses. Id. Since an ecommerce store operator can input any physical address, such addresses are usually false and/or 

are not where the e-commerce store operator is located. Id. As such, even if a physical address is 

available, it is not a reliable means for identifying and locating Defendants. Id. 

 In addition, e-commerce store operators must provide a valid e-mail address to customers 

for completing payment and/or managing their e-commerce stores. Moreover, it is necessary for 

merchants, such as Defendants, who operate entirely online, to visit their e-commerce store to 

ensure it is functioning and to communicate with customers electronically. As such, it is far more 

likely that Defendants can be served electronically than through traditional service of process 

methods. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03131 Document #: 19 Filed: 05/28/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2214
3 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows this Court to authorize service of process by 

any means not prohibited by international agreement as the Court directs. Gianni Versace, S.P.A. 

v. Yong Peng, et al., No. 18-cv-5385 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2019) citing Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l 

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit in Rio Properties held, “without 

hesitation,” that e-mail service of an online business defendant “was constitutionally acceptable.” 

Id. at 1017. The Court reached this conclusion, in part, because the defendant conducted its 

business over the Internet, used e-mail regularly in its business, and encouraged parties to contact 

it via e-mail. Id. 

 Plaintiff has good cause to suspect the Defendants are all residents of China and/or Hong 

Kong. The People’s Republic of China is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service 

Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague 

Convention”). Gaudio Declaration at ¶ 3. 

According to Article 1 of the Hague Convention, the “convention shall not apply where 

the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.” Id. United States District 

Courts, including Courts in this District, routinely permit alternative service of process 

notwithstanding the Hague Convention. See e.g., Gianni Versace, S.P.A. v. Yong Peng, et al., No. 

18-cv-5385 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2019) (“Nor must Versace attempt service by contacting the Chinese 

Ministry of Justice, as suggested by [defendant]. The plain language of Rule 4 requires only that 

service be made as directed by the court and not prohibited by international agreement.”); In re 

Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907, 930 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“plaintiffs are not required to 

first attempt service through the Hague Convention.”); see also, Strabala v. Zhang, 318 F.R.D. 81, 

114 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (authorizing alternative service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)); Sulzer 

Mixpac AG v. Medenstar Indus. Co., 312 F.R.D. 329, 331-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (same); In re LDK 

Case: 1:20-cv-03131 Document #: 19 Filed: 05/28/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:2215
4 

Solar Securities Litigation, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90702, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2008) (same); 

Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31299, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

17, 2007) (same); Levi Strauss & Co., v. Zhejiang Weidu Garment Co., Ltd. et al., No. 16-cv-7824 

(N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2016) (same). The Hague Convention also does not preclude service by e-mail. 

Gaudio Declaration at ¶ 4. See e.g., Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Ink Techs. Printer Supplies, LLC, 295 

F.R.D. 259, 261 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“[v]arious courts have agreed that service by email is not 

prohibited by the Hague Convention”); Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 42160, at *6–7 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (citing cases where courts held that service by email did not violate the Hague Convention as to foreign defendants, including in China). 

 Furthermore, Rule 4 does not require that a party attempt service of process by other 

methods enumerated in Rule 4(f) before petitioning the court for alternative relief under Rule 

4(f)(3). Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2002). As the Rio Properties Court explained, 

Rule 4(f) does not create a hierarchy of preferred methods of service of process. Id. at 1014. To 

the contrary, the plain language of the Rule requires only that service be directed by the court and 

not be prohibited by international agreement. There are no other limitations or requirements. Id. 

Alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a “last resort” nor “extraordinary relief,” but is 

rather one means among several by which an international defendant may be served. Id. Likewise, 

Courts have confirmed that the Hague Convention does not displace Rule 4(f)(3). See Gianni 

Versace, S.P.A. v. Yong Peng, et al., No. 18-cv-5385 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2019) citing Nagravision 

SA v. Gotech Int’l Tech. Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Overlooking Rule

4(f)(3) entirely, Gotech argues that the service did not comply with the Hague Convention and 

Rule 4(f)(1). This argument misses the mark because service was not effected pursuant to the 

Hague Convention, and that agreement does not displace Rule 4(f)(3).”). Finally, Court-directed 

Case: 1:20-cv-03131 Document #: 19 Filed: 05/28/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2216
5 

electronic service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) is particularly appropriate in this case where "there is a 

need for speed that cannot be met by following the Hague Convention methods...” because of the 

injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs. Strabala v. Zhang, 318 F.R.D. 81, 114 (N.D. Ill. 2016) citing

4B FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 1134 (4th ed.). As such, this Court may allow Plaintiff to serve the 

Defendants via electronic publication and e-mail. 

 For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court’s permission to 

serve Defendants via e-mail and electronic publication. In accordance with this request, the 

proposed Temporary Restraining Order includes authorization to serve Defendants electronically 

and provides for issuance of a single original summons1

 in the name of “BRANDCAR STORE 

and all other Defendants identified in the Amended Complaint” that shall apply to all Defendants 

in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b). 

Dated this 28th day of May 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Justin R. Gaudio 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Allyson M. Martin 

Thomas J. Juettner 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 / 312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

amartin@gbc.law 

tjjuettner@gbc.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff Volkswagen Group of 

America, Inc. 

1 The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendment to Rule 4(b) states, “If there are multiple 

defendants, the plaintiff may secure issuance of a summons for each defendant, or may serve copies of a 

single original bearing the names of multiple defendants if the addressee of the summons is effectively 

identified.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) advisory committee notes (1993) (emphasis added). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03131 Document #: 19 Filed: 05/28/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2217