Wondershare Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Superace Software Technology Co., Ltd

Background

Wondershare Technology Group Co., Ltd. and Wondershare Technology (Hunan) Co., Ltd. sued Superace Software Technology Co., Ltd. and Hongkong Superace Software Technology Co., Limited. Wondershare alleged that Superace conducted a campaign of false and misleading comparative advertising intended to mislead consumers, discredit Wondershare’s products, and divert business opportunities.

Wondershare sought a temporary restraining order (TRO), an emergency court order temporarily requiring action or prohibiting conduct. The requested order would have required Superace to remove allegedly false or misleading comparative advertising, take reasonable steps to address the continued availability of the statements, and refrain from publishing further misleading statements. Wondershare also sought an order directing PayPal, Inc. to freeze Superace’s accounts and asked for permission to serve the defendants by email.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied without prejudice Wondershare’s request for an ex parte TRO. “Ex parte” means requested without giving the opposing party advance notice. The court explained that such orders are appropriate only in a narrow range of cases, including situations where notice would make it impossible to obtain effective relief.

The court found that Wondershare had not made the required showing. Wondershare offered only a general statement that notice could allow a defendant to remove online material, destroy evidence, or move assets. It did not assert that this risk was present here and did not provide evidence that Superace had previously violated court orders or disposed of evidence. The court also noted that Superace had responded to Wondershare’s demand letter by stating that it had removed the comparison webpage and related promotional materials from its platforms.

The court acknowledged Wondershare’s contention that Superace’s response was insufficient and that additional comparison content remained online, but stated that issue could be litigated later and did not justify proceeding without notice. The court also noted that Wondershare had already informed Superace about the lawsuit and the possibility of seeking emergency relief, so Superace had already received the advance notice that Wondershare claimed could frustrate effective relief. The court did not decide whether Wondershare was otherwise entitled to the requested injunctive relief.

Alternative Service

The court also denied without prejudice Wondershare’s request to serve Superace by email. The complaint alleged that Superace Software was organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China and had its principal place of business in China, while Hong Kong Superace Software Technology was organized under the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and had its principal place of business in Hong Kong, China.

The court discussed the Hague Service Convention, a treaty that establishes procedures for serving legal documents abroad. It found that Wondershare’s cited authority did not support email service on defendants in China. Although courts disagree about whether email service on foreign defendants is permissible, Wondershare did not explain why the decisions allowing it correctly interpreted the treaty, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and binding authority. Wondershare also did not argue that an exception to the treaty applied.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice Wondershare’s request to issue an ex parte TRO and denied without prejudice its request to authorize alternative service by electronic mail. The order disposed of Docket No. 15. The court did not reach the merits of Wondershare’s advertising claims or decide whether the requested injunction should ultimately issue.