Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-03835
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker, Judge Chen granted in part Astral’s request to serve Care20 by email and mail.
Astral IP Enterprise LTD must serve Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker by email at three identified addresses and by mail at the physical address in Pakistan; the underlying infringement claims were not decided.
What happened
Astral IP Enterprise LTD sued Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker over alleged trademark and copyright infringement involving a flower icon used in Care20’s period-tracking application. Astral asked to serve the summons and complaint by email.
The court said email service could reasonably notify Care20 because Care20 had provided an email address in a copyright counter-notice, and Astral had identified two additional email addresses. But the court found Astral had not sufficiently shown that Care20’s physical address in Pakistan was invalid.
The court therefore granted in part Astral’s motion and required service by email at all three identified addresses, as well as by mail at the Pakistan address. Judge Chen’s order addressed service only and did not decide the infringement claims.
The detailed version
- Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker · No. 3:23-cv-03835
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 27, 2023
Background
Astral IP Enterprise Ltd. sued Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker, asserting claims including trademark and copyright infringement. Astral alleged that Care20 offered a period-tracking application called “Cycle Tracker Period Calendar” on Google Play and that the application used a flower icon identical or confusingly similar to Astral’s registered trademark.
Astral moved for permission to serve the summons and complaint by email. Care20 had submitted a counter-notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after Astral filed a takedown notice. The counter-notice provided a physical address in Pakistan and the email address care20.pk@gmail.com. Astral also identified info@care20.com and contact@care20.com as support email addresses for other mobile applications that appeared affiliated with Care20.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing service by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows a court to direct an alternative method of serving a defendant outside the United States when that method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court noted that Astral was not required to try service under the Hague Convention before requesting email service, and that the Hague Convention did not specifically prohibit service by email.
The court concluded that email service appeared reasonably calculated to notify Care20 of the lawsuit because Care20 itself had provided an email address in its counter-notice. However, the court found that Astral had not sufficiently shown that the Pakistan physical address was invalid. Astral’s brief Internet research provided some support for that position, but not enough. The court also noted that Pakistan did not object to sending judicial documents directly by postal channels.
Ruling
The court granted in part Astral’s motion for electronic service of process. It required Astral to serve Care20 by email at all three identified email addresses and also by mail at the physical address in Pakistan. The order disposed of Docket No. 12. It did not resolve Astral’s trademark or copyright claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.