Global Brother SRL v. Kaur
- Virginia Demarchi
- 3:25-cv-01283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Global Brother SRL v. Kaur, Judge Demarchi denied email service but granted a subpoena to identify the defendant.
Global Brother may obtain limited identifying information from Shopify to serve the alleged infringer. Will Kaur, any person or entity using the subpoenaed account, and Shopify are affected by the service and notice procedures.
What happened
Global Brother SRL sued Will Kaur and others for alleged copyright infringement. It could not serve Kaur, and the address in a copyright-related counter-notice appeared unreliable. Global Brother asked to serve Kaur by email or, alternatively, to obtain identifying information from Shopify.
The court denied permission to serve Kaur by email because Global Brother had not shown that the email address was connected to Kaur, whose name and identity were uncertain. The court granted permission to serve Shopify with a subpoena seeking information that could identify the alleged infringer and provide an address for service.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi required at least 30 days for Shopify to respond and limited use of the information to serving the alleged infringer in this case. Affected users may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order.
The detailed version
- Global Brother SRL v. Kaur · No. 3:25-cv-01283
- Virginia Demarchi
- July 17, 2025
Background
Global Brother SRL filed a copyright infringement action against Will Kaur, George Andres Smith, Erika Tillis, and unnamed defendants. Global Brother originally relied on an address in a copyright takedown counter-notice submitted through Shopify. The address turned out to be Mr. Smith's residence, not the address of the other defendants. Global Brother later dismissed Mr. Smith and successfully served Ms. Tillis, but it was unable to serve Mr. Kaur.
Global Brother sought permission to serve Kaur by emailing the documents to pixelshophub@gmail.com. Global Brother had communicated with someone using that address who claimed to be associated with Pixel Shop Hub and to know about the alleged infringement. That person used the name “Elizabeth Miller,” which Global Brother suspected was false. Global Brother alternatively sought permission to serve Shopify with a third-party subpoena before the parties' required initial discovery conference.
Alternative service
The court denied the motion for alternative service. Under the applicable rules, email service must be reasonably likely to provide actual notice, and the plaintiff must show an association between the email address and the defendant. The court found that Global Brother had not shown that pixelshophub@gmail.com was associated with Will Kaur. The uncertainty about whether “Will Kaur” was the alleged infringer's real name, together with the apparently false information in the counter-notice, made email service premature.
Third-party subpoena
The court granted Global Brother's motion for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Shopify. The court found good cause for expedited discovery—limited information-gathering before the normal discovery process—because Global Brother showed that it had taken steps to locate the defendant, had identified the defendant sufficiently for a federal lawsuit, had a claim that could withstand a motion to dismiss, and was reasonably likely to identify the defendant through discovery. The court also noted Global Brother's representation that it had satisfied the copyright-registration requirement for filing the lawsuit.
Requirements and limits
The subpoena may require Shopify to provide the information listed in the subpoena's attachment, and Global Brother must attach this order. The subpoena must allow Shopify at least 30 days to respond. Shopify must notify the affected user or users by a reasonable method, including written notice sent to a last-known address by first-class mail or overnight service. Global Brother may use the disclosed information only to identify the alleged infringer and serve process in this action. An affected party or user may object to the subpoena or seek a protective order.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for alternative service and granted the motion for leave to serve the third-party subpoena.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.