Foxmind Canada Enterprises LTD. v. Badouyu Intelligent Iot Technology Co.
Foxmind Canada Enterprises LTD. v. Badouyu Intelligent Iot Technology(Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-00885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In FoxMind v. Badouyu, Judge Broderick stayed the case and terminated open motions while the Second Circuit reviewed service by email.
FoxMind Canada Enterprises Ltd.’s request for default judgment and a permanent injunction was paused, and the defendants were not subjected to a default judgment while the related service issue remained pending before the Second Circuit.
What happened
FoxMind Canada Enterprises Ltd. sued Badouyu Intelligent Iot Technology (Suzhou) Co., and more than 100 other defendants, alleging counterfeit “Pop It” toys were sold online. FoxMind asked for a default judgment and a permanent injunction.
The court had allowed service by email and later required FoxMind to explain whether that service complied with federal rules and an international service treaty. A similar case was pending before the Second Circuit, involving whether email service on defendants in China was permitted and whether improper service prevented personal jurisdiction.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick stayed FoxMind v. Badouyu, directed the clerk to terminate open motions, and required FoxMind to provide a status update within seven days after the appeals court rules. The court did not decide the default-judgment request or the service issue.
The detailed version
- Foxmind Canada Enterprises LTD. v. Badouyu Intelligent Iot Technology Co. · No. 1:22-cv-00885
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background FoxMind Canada Enterprises Ltd. brought a trademark-infringement case alleging that more than 100 defendants sold counterfeit “Pop It” brand toys on Alibaba or AliExpress. FoxMind sought a default judgment and a permanent injunction.
Service and Related Appeal On March 18, 2022, the court entered a temporary restraining order allowing alternative service by email. After FoxMind moved for default judgment, the court required supplemental briefing on whether the defendants had been properly served under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also required a declaration describing FoxMind’s efforts to find physical addresses for service.
The court noted that, in a prior related proceeding, another judge held that service by email on individuals or entities located in China was not permitted under the Hague Convention or the Federal Rules. That decision concluded that the defendants had not been properly served, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and that default had to be denied. The decision was on appeal to the Second Circuit in Smart Study Co., LTD v. Acuteye-US, No. 22-1810.
Ruling The court found that the balance of interests favored pausing this case until the Second Circuit resolved the service issue. The appeals court’s decision could clarify whether email service was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction and could provide guidance about the United States’ and China’s treaty obligations. The court therefore ordered the case stayed, directed the clerk to mark the case as stayed and terminate any open motions, and directed FoxMind to file a status-update letter within seven days after the Second Circuit’s decision. The order did not decide whether service was valid or whether FoxMind was entitled to default judgment or a permanent injunction.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered the order on December 7, 2022.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.