Reflex Media, Inc. v. SuccessfulMatch.com

Background

Reflex Media, Inc. and Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD., identified collectively in the opinion as Reflex Media, operate online dating websites. They sued SuccessfulMatch.com, Successful Match Canada, Inc., and Qiang Du, the founder and chief executive officer identified in the opinion, for trademark infringement, unfair business practices, and related claims arising from competing websites.

Reflex Media moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for court-approved service on Successful Match Canada and Du. It proposed email service and service by mail and email through the Buchalter Professional Corporation, the law firm representing Successful Match U.S. in the case. The foreign defendants did not file an opposition. The Buchalter Firm submitted an opposition brief on behalf of Successful Match U.S., although the court questioned the timing and “amicus” designation of that filing.

Reflex Media had tried to serve Successful Match Canada through Canada’s central authority under the Hague Convention. That effort failed because the company’s registered address was a UPS store and no one there would accept service for the company. Reflex Media also attempted to serve Du and Successful Match U.S. in the United States. An attempt at a California address associated with Successful Match U.S. failed, and although a person believed to be Du accepted service at a Maryland address, the Buchalter Firm later asserted that Du was in China at the time.

Court’s analysis

Rule 4(f) provides several ways to serve defendants located outside the United States. The court explained that Rule 4(f)(3) permits other court-directed methods when they are not prohibited by an international agreement. It rejected the argument that a plaintiff must first exhaust service under the Hague Convention or other methods. The court also stated that Rule 4(f)(3) service is not a last resort and may be used even if it conflicts with the foreign country’s local law, so long as it is court-directed and not prohibited by an international agreement.

The court held that the proposed methods were reasonably calculated to inform the affected defendants about the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to respond. Service through the Buchalter Firm was reasonable because the firm and Successful Match U.S. were closely connected with the foreign defendants in this case. The court noted that the firm had previously represented Du, had contacted Reflex Media’s counsel about Du’s location, and actively opposed the service motion.

The court also found email service on Du reasonable. It cited the unsuccessful conventional service efforts and the absence of valid service addresses in public filings. The record showed that Reflex Media had sent test emails to Du’s email address without evidence that they were blocked or redirected. The court concluded that email was the most direct remaining method for notifying Du and Successful Match Canada.

Ruling

The court granted Reflex Media’s motion for an order authorizing service under Rule 4(f)(3). It ordered service on the Buchalter Firm, specifically attorney Holbrow, by emailing the complaint to him and sending a hard copy by registered mail through the United States Postal Service to the firm’s offices. It also ordered service on Qiang Du by email at the address stated in the order.

The order preserved the foreign defendants’ right to challenge the effectiveness of service through a timely motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) or another appropriate proceeding. The court vacated the February 11, 2021 motion hearing.