Opinion
21-cv-03617-JST
09-24-2021
HUDDLY AS, Plaintiff, v. SUZHOUS WASHENG TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO SERVE DEFENDANT BY PUBLICATION
LAUREL BEELER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Huddly AS - a Norwegian company that sells videoconferencing products and services - is suing the defendant, Suzhou Washeng Technology (d/b/a Hamedal), for federal trademark infringement and related claims. Because Huddly was unable to serve Hamedal, it asked to serve it by publication. In an earlier order, the court determined that alternative service was appropriate, observed that service by publication generally does not result in actual service, identified emails for possible service (sales@hamedal.com and johnny.shi@auditoryworks.com), and asked Huddly to try to identify other contact information by contacting Hamedal's former attorney.
Compl. - ECF No. 4. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
Shi Decl. - ECF No. 10-1 at 2-3 (¶¶ 4-7); Mot. ‒ ECF No. 10;
Order ‒ ECF No. 14. This order incorporates the earlier order's fact summary and analysis.
In response to the earlier order, Huddly updated its investigation, found that Hamedal's website was up again, and identified two more emails on that website (support@hamedal.com and pr@hamedal.com). Also, the USPTO trademark database lists an “attorney primary email” (jtfushen@gmail.com) and a “correspondent email” (stevenyuan@lawvictor.com and johnny.shi@auditoryworks.com). Huddly's counsel also contacted Steven Yuan, the attorney who previously represented Hamedal and asked for additional contact information for Hamedal and its officers. Mr. Yuan said that he could not disclose the contact information because he did not have a confidentiality waiver (adding that he was sorry). Huddly has been unable to identify any other contact information for Hamedal or its officers, Andy Xin and Johnny Shi. It thus proposes serving the summons and complaint by email to the five identified email addresses and by publication.
Shi Supp. Decl. - ECF No. 15 at 2 (¶ 3).
Id. at 2-3 (¶ 4); Screenshots, Exs. 1 & 2 to id. - ECF No. 15 at 5-7.
Shi Supp. Decl. - ECF No. 15 at 3 (¶ 5).
Id. (¶ 6).
Id. (¶ 7) & Service Plan, Ex. 3 to id. - ECF No. 15 at 10-11.
The court approves Huddly's service plan and authorizes service by email and publication. Huddly has exercised reasonable diligence to serve the defendant: (1) it sent waiver requests to the two Hamedal directors at the U.S. headquarters, attempted personal service there, and subsequently determined that Hamedal did not rent space there; (2) it contacted Hamedal's counsel; and (3) it investigated contact information for Hamedal and its directors, identified email addresses, and was unable to identify any other contact information for Hamedal or its officers. The service plan is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to Hamedal because the email addresses are associated with Hamedal's business activities. The court will separately file Huddly's proposed order at ECF No. 15-1, which lists the email addresses and sets forth the general publication plan.
Shi Decl. - ECF No. 10-1 at 2-3 (¶¶ 4-7); Exs. 2-3 to id. at 8-12; Shi Supp. Decl. - ECF No. 15; Order - ECF No. 14.
Service by publication must comply with the California Government Code § 6064, which provides that publication in the newspaper must occur four times with five days in between each publication. The court also asks Huddly to file a declaration identifying the Santa Clara newspaper or journal where it will publish the summons.
IT IS SO ORDERED.