Overnight Blowout LLC. v. Shenzhen Kairuijia e-commerce co., ltd.

Background

Overnight Blowout LLC and Yesenia Hipolito asked the court for several emergency orders against multiple e-commerce retailers. They alleged that the defendants were counterfeiting the plaintiffs’ patented hair-accessory product, the Overnight Blowout Rod. The requested relief included a temporary restraining order, permission to serve the defendants by email instead of through ordinary international procedures, expedited discovery, and an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

On July 30, 2025, the court issued the requested orders, including a temporary restraining order, with certain exceptions. This memorandum explained the court’s decision about alternative service by email.

Issue

The plaintiffs sought permission to serve all defendants located in China or Hong Kong by email. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits court-directed service on people in another country only when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court considered whether the Hague Convention on service of judicial and extrajudicial documents barred email service on the defendants in China.

Ruling

The court authorized alternative service by email for BOBOL and Fancy Beauty US. It found that the plaintiffs had shown through reasonable diligence that the addresses for those two defendants were unknown, so the Hague Convention did not apply to them.

The court partially denied the plaintiffs’ request for alternative service as to the remaining defendants for whom at least some address was available. That denial was without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ ability to renew the request later. The court held that Hague Convention service was required for those defendants unless the plaintiffs could show that their addresses were not actually known.

Reasoning

The court maintained its view that, as a general matter, email service on defendants in China is not permitted under Rule 4(f)(3) because China and the United States are parties to the Hague Convention. An address is “unknown” under the Convention when the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence to find a physical address for service but has been unsuccessful.

The plaintiffs had obtained at least purported addresses for all but BOBOL and Fancy Beauty US. For some defendants, couriers could not locate the defendants during a single test mailing. For others, the test mailings were successful but did not conclusively establish that the defendants operated from the listed addresses. The court found that these facts did not yet show that the addresses were unknown. It noted that the plaintiffs could present additional evidence that the addresses were fictitious.

The plaintiffs also argued that the Hague Convention’s urgency provision allowed email service as a provisional or protective measure because they faced irreparable harm from alleged patent, copyright, or trademark infringement. The court rejected that argument. It reasoned that formal service does more than provide notice: it establishes the procedure by which a court asserts personal jurisdiction over the served party and can lead to final relief, including a permanent injunction or default judgment. In the court’s view, Article 15’s urgency provision was better understood to cover temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, which provide interim protection rather than final relief.

The court further held that email could satisfy the notice requirement for the temporary restraining order and order to show cause. Specifically, it found that emailing the defendants those documents and the complaint would provide adequate notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), even though the email would not constitute formal service under Rule 4. The court stated that the urgency supporting interim relief largely dissipates after a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issues.

Effect of the Order

The order resolved the plaintiffs’ request for alternative service, not the underlying allegations of counterfeiting or the merits of any patent, copyright, or trademark claims. Email service was authorized for BOBOL and Fancy Beauty US, while the request concerning the other defendants was partially denied without prejudice. The plaintiffs could renew that request if they later supplied evidence showing that the other defendants’ addresses were not actually known.