iHealth Labs, Inc. v. Fingix

Background

iHealth Labs, Inc. brought a trademark infringement and counterfeit-goods action against Fingix, i-Enterprise, Hong Ta LLC, Lovesilverhalos, Adina Elegance, LED Eagle, Charli Discount, L222L also known as Blustercool, Samantha Belloc, LILIMI, R Delivery, and Does 1-100. iHealth alleged that it was the sole authorized United States distributor and seller of the iHealth Infrared No-Touch Forehead Thermometer and owned the product's registered trademark. It alleged that the defendants sold counterfeit versions on Amazon.com.

No named defendant had appeared. iHealth sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and related rules to serve Lovesilverhalos, i-Enterprise, Charli Discount, Fingix, Hong Ta LLC, Adina Elegance, LED Eagle, and R Delivery by posting the case documents and related information on a website created for that purpose. iHealth believed that Lovesilverhalos was in the United States, i-Enterprise was in Ireland, Charli Discount was in France, and the other listed defendants were in China.

Legal standard

For a person in the United States, California law permits service by publication only when the person cannot be served in another way despite reasonable diligence and a valid claim exists against that person or the person is a necessary or proper party. For a person or business outside the United States, Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court-ordered method of service that is not prohibited by an international agreement.

In either setting, the method must satisfy constitutional notice requirements: it must be reasonably likely, under the circumstances, to inform the affected parties about the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to object.

Court's analysis

As to Lovesilverhalos, the court held that iHealth had not shown that this defendant could not be served by another method. iHealth stated only that it had tried to contact defendants through Amazon's Brand Registry. The supporting declaration did not explain what iHealth had done to identify any defendant. The court therefore could not determine whether iHealth had used the reasonable diligence required by California law. The court denied iHealth's request as to Lovesilverhalos.

As to the foreign defendants, the court was unaware of an international agreement involving France, Ireland, or China that prohibited website publication. But the court was not persuaded that posting the materials on a website alone was reasonably likely to notify the defendants. iHealth did not explain how the defendants would learn about or find the website, and it did not provide supporting case law showing that website-only publication satisfied constitutional notice requirements. The court noted that courts permitting website publication generally paired it with another method, such as emailing the website address or redirecting someone visiting a defendant's website.

The court also questioned whether iHealth had sufficiently investigated the defendants' identities and contact information. The opinion states that Amazon's Brand Registry requires sellers to provide information including a bank account number, routing number, credit card, government-issued identification number, tax information, and telephone number. The court therefore indicated that Amazon might possess information that could help identify and contact the defendants, but the opinion does not describe a final finding about what additional investigation iHealth was required to conduct.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice iHealth's request to serve the unserved defendants by website publication. The order concerned the method of service and did not decide the underlying trademark infringement or counterfeit-goods allegations.