Moonbug Entertainment Limited and El Bebe Productions Limited v. Store
Moonbug Entertainment Limited and El Bebe Productions Limited v. Babytee Store, Background Store, Boutique Trend No. 2 Store, Cozy Party Store, Designer Fabric Store, Feifei Fabric Store, Genovo Store 2 Store, Genovo Store1898 Store, GFDESIGN Backdrop Store, GFUITRR Design Backdrop Store, Innitree Store, Junglet Party Store, Kawaii Kids Store, LBING888 Store, Make Mug Store, Party Background Decoration Store, Photurt Professional Backdrop Store, Seamlessbackdrop Store, Sensfun Backdrop Store, Shop1100077035 Store, Shop3407008 Store, Supery Party Store, Woncol Professional Background Store, Woollen Blanket No. 2 Store, Yayestudio Store, Yiwu Toystocker Toysco., Ltd. and Yoobaby Store
- Vargas
- 1:22-cv-02032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Moonbug Entertainment v. Babytee Store, Judge Vargas declined default judgment for 17 defendants, found alternative service appropriate for 10, and set a hearing.
The ruling affected Moonbug Entertainment Limited and El Bebe Productions Limited, the 17 defendants whose physical addresses were known, and the 10 defendants whose listed addresses were undeliverable. The court declined default judgment as to the 17 known-address defendants and scheduled further proceedings concerning the 10 other defendants.
What happened
In Moonbug Entertainment Limited and El Bebe Productions Limited v. Babytee Store and others, the plaintiffs accused China-based individuals and businesses of selling counterfeit Little Baby Bum products through online storefronts. The plaintiffs sought default judgment after the defendants did not respond.
The court examined whether the defendants had been properly served and whether it had authority over them. For 17 defendants whose physical addresses plaintiffs had located and confirmed, the court held that service by electronic means was not proper under the Hague Convention and that the court lacked authority over those defendants. For 10 defendants whose listed addresses could not be successfully used, the court found that plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate them, so alternative service was appropriate.
The court declined to enter default judgment against the 17 defendants and scheduled a November 24, 2025 hearing on the pending default-judgment application for the 10 other defendants. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas also required plaintiffs to serve the 10 defendants with the order and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Moonbug Entertainment Limited and El Bebe Productions Limited v. Store · No. 1:22-cv-02032
- Vargas
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs brought claims for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and related state and common-law claims involving Little Baby Bum products. They alleged that the defendants manufactured, marketed, and sold counterfeit products to consumers in the United States through storefronts on Alibaba and/or AliExpress. The opinion states that the defendants were individuals and/or businesses located in China.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick previously granted a temporary restraining order authorizing alternative service and later granted a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs obtained certificates of default and applied for default judgment and a permanent injunction. The court then required supplemental briefing about whether service complied with the Hague Convention or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service and Personal Jurisdiction
Before entering default judgment, a court may determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Service of the summons is a procedural requirement for exercising that authority. Rule 4(f)(3), which governs certain service methods for defendants outside the United States, requires the court to determine whether the ordered service method is prohibited by an international agreement and whether it satisfies constitutional due process.
The United States and China are parties to the Hague Convention. The court followed decisions concluding that electronic service on defendants in China is prohibited by that Convention when their physical addresses are known. The Convention does not apply when the person’s address is not known, but an address is considered unknown only when the plaintiff has used reasonable diligence to try to find a physical address and was unsuccessful.
Known Address Defendants
Plaintiffs’ supplemental declaration showed that they had obtained physical addresses for 17 defendants from their merchant storefronts and confirmed those addresses through internet searches. A courier successfully delivered materials to those addresses. The court therefore found that the addresses were known to plaintiffs with reasonable diligence, so the Hague Convention applied. It held that service under Rule 4(f) was not proper and that it lacked personal jurisdiction over those 17 defendants, identified in the opinion as the Known Address Defendants:
- Baby Tee Store - background Store - DESIGNER FABRIC Store - FeiFei Fabric Store - GENOVO Store 2 Store - GENOVO Store1898 Store - INNITREE Store - Junglet party Store - Kawaii kids Store - Party Background Decoration Store - Photurt Professional Backdrop Store - seamlessbackdrop Store - Shop1100077035 Store - Shop3407008 Store - Supery Party Store - woollen blanket No. 2 Store - yayeStudio Store
The court declined to enter default judgment with respect to these defendants.
Other Defendants and Next Steps
For the remaining 10 defendants—Boutique trend No. 2 Store, Cozy Party Store, GFdesign backdrop Store, GFUITRR Design Backdrop Store, LBING888 Store, Make Mug Store, sensfun backdrop Store, Woncol professional background Store, Yiwu Toystocker Toys Co., Ltd., and YooBaby Store—the courier reported that mail sent to the listed addresses was undeliverable. The court found that plaintiffs had exercised reasonable diligence but had not successfully obtained usable physical addresses. Because the addresses were not known under the Hague Convention, the court found alternative service under Rule 4(f) appropriate for these defendants.
The court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ pending default-judgment application for November 24, 2025, and set November 10, 2025, as the deadline for any opposition. The court directed plaintiffs to serve the 10 defendants with the order within one business day, permitted electronic service under the previously established procedures, and required plaintiffs to file proof of service within two business days. The opinion does not state that the court entered default judgment against any defendant in this order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.