Alleging that the equipment did not perform as warranted, Gendler sued Telecom and Nippon, but not NEC America or NEC Telephones. Gendler settled with Telecom, but Nippon contends that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts. The Law Division granted Nippon's motion to dismiss, finding that Nippon did not have sufficient contacts to subject it to the court's jurisdiction, but the Appellate Division reversed, 199 N.J. Super. 227 (1985). We granted certification, 102 N.J. 318 (1985), and now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the matter to the Law Division for the development of a more complete record.

Petition for certification granted. (See 199 N.J. Super. 227)

Generally, "[s]ervice of a summons and complaint upon a subsidiary is not sufficient service on a parent corporation." Charles Gendler & Co. v. Nippon Elec. Co., 199 N.J.Super. 227, 240-41 (App. Div. 1985), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Charles Gendler & Co. v. Telecom Equip.Corp., 102 N.J. 460 (1986).

In New Jersey, such service is not effective; the attempted service on Komori America did not constitute service on Komori. See Charles Gendler Co., Inc. v. Nippon Elec. Co., 199 N.J. Super. 227, 488 A.2d 1091 (App.Div. 1985), rev. on other grounds, 102 N.J. 460, 508 A.2d 1127 (1986); Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment to R. 4:4-4(c) at 739 (1992). Therefore, we must consider whether the mail service made in Japan in accordance with our rules is effective under the Hague Convention.