ZURU Inc. v. Individuals
ZURU Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03146
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In ZURU v. The Individuals, Judge Schofield temporarily sealed defendants’ identities but denied ZURU’s request for email and website service.
ZURU, INC. and the 117 defendants identified in Schedule A. The defendants’ identities were temporarily sealed during the temporary restraining order, while ZURU’s requested email and website service was denied.
What happened
ZURU, INC. sued 117 defendants, alleging that they infringed ZURU’s trademark for water balloons. ZURU asked the court to temporarily seal the list identifying those defendants and to allow service of the lawsuit by email and website posting.
The court found that ZURU’s allegations, if true, provided good cause to temporarily keep the defendants’ identities secret while the temporary restraining order was in effect. The court also considered international service rules and China’s objection to service by mail under the Hague Service Convention.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to seal for the duration of the temporary restraining order but denied ZURU’s request for alternative service by email and website posting.
The detailed version
- ZURU Inc. v. Individuals · No. 1:23-cv-03146
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
ZURU, INC. brought this lawsuit against 117 defendants, alleging infringement of its trademark for water balloons. ZURU moved for three forms of relief: an ex parte temporary restraining order, temporary sealing of Schedule A—which listed the defendants—and permission to serve the defendants through email and website posting under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The opinion states that the temporary restraining order was granted in a separate order.
Temporary sealing
ZURU argued that the defendants might hide or transfer allegedly infringing products, funds, and records outside the court’s jurisdiction if their identities were disclosed. The court held that these allegations, if true, established good cause to temporarily seal the defendants’ identities. The court also found that limiting the sealing period to the time the temporary restraining order was in effect made the sealing order sufficiently narrow. The motion to seal was therefore GRANTED during that period.
Alternative service
Rule 4(f) governs service of legal papers on an individual in a foreign country. Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to authorize another method of service, but only if that method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court relied on the Hague Service Convention and noted that China is a signatory. It also relied on a prior Southern District of New York decision concluding that China’s objection to service by mail under the Convention extends to electronic service, including email and website notice. Based on that reasoning, the court determined that Rule 4(f) did not permit the service methods ZURU requested because they were prohibited by the applicable international agreement.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield DENIED ZURU’s request for alternative service. The order thus granted the sealing motion for the stated period and denied the request to serve the defendants by email and website posting. This order addressed sealing and service; the opinion does not decide whether the defendants infringed ZURU’s trademark.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.