BRIDLINGTON BUD LTD v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-cv-26837-DPG
BRIDLINGTON BUD LTD,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PARTNERSHIPS,
UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED
ON SCHEDULE A,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Order Authorizing
Alternate Service of Process on Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3)
(“Motion”). [ECF No. 8]. This is a federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting case in which
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, through e-commerce stores, are advertising, promoting, offering
for sale, or selling goods bearing and/or using what Plaintiff has claimed are counterfeits and
infringements of Plaintiff’s registered trademark.
In the Motion, Plaintiff requests an order authorizing alternative service of process on
Defendants in this action “via email and via web publication.” [ECF No. 8 at 2]. Plaintiff contends
that electronic service by these means is sufficient to provide notice to Defendants, who reportedly
reside in or operate from The People’s Republic of China (“China”) and have established
Internet-based businesses and utilize electronic means as reliable forms of contact. Id.; [ECF No.
8–1 ¶¶ 4–5].
Case 1:26-cv-26837-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(h) outlines the proper means of service upon
foreign corporations, including “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in
any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under
(f)(2)(C)(i)”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2). An alternative method of service under Rule 4(f)(3) is
available without first attempting service by other means. See, e.g., Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l
Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2002). “So especially in a circumstance where service
upon a foreign corporation under Rule 4(f)(1) or 4(f)(2) has been cumbersome, district courts have
broad discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize other methods of service that are consistent with
due process and are not prohibited by international agreements.” Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v.
Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 05-cv-21962, 2007 WL 1577771, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2007)
(citing Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916, 921, 927
(11th Cir. 2003)).
The Court finds that alternative service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is warranted, and the
means of service proposed by Plaintiff are acceptable. Although the United States and China are
signatories to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”), the Hague Convention does
not specifically preclude service by e-mail and website posting. While China has declared that it
opposes to the alternative means of service outlined in Article 10 of the Hague Convention, the
objection is specifically limited to the means of service enumerated in Article 10, and China has
not expressly objected to service via e-mail or website posting. [ECF No. 8–1 ¶ 9]. Where a
signatory nation to the Hague Convention has objected to an alternative means of service, that
objection is limited to those specific means and does not represent an objection to other forms of
service, such e-mail or website posting. Stat Med. Devices, Inc. v. HTL-Strefa, Inc., No. 15-cv-
Case 1:26-cv-26837-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
20590, 2015 WL 5320947, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2015) (noting that an objection to one means
of service under the Hague Convention “does not equate to an express objection” to other means
of service). A court acting under Rule 4(f)(3) therefore remains free to order alternative means of
service if the signatory nation at issue has not expressly objected to those means. See Gurung v.
Malhotra, 279 F.R.D. 215, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Accordingly, the requested service methods are
not prohibited by international agreement.
Additionally, due process is not offended by the proposed methods of service. Defendants
use at least one known and valid form of electronic contact, and Plaintiff has created a website for
the sole purpose of providing notice of this action to Defendants, the address to which will be
provided to Defendants’ known e-mail accounts. Therefore, service via e-mail and website posting
is “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise . . . [Defendants] of the pendency of
the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” See Brookshire Brothers,
Ltd., 2007 WL 1577771, at *1 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S.
306, 314 (1950)). Thus, the Court will exercise its discretion to allow service on Defendants
through e-mail and website posting.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion, [ECF No. 8], is
hereby GRANTED.
a. 	Plaintiff may serve the Summons, the Complaint, and all other future filings in this
matter on Defendants by (1) providing Plaintiff’s designated service notice website
to the email addresses that Defendants provided to Walmart when registering as
merchants on Walmart’s platform; and (2) providing access to Plaintiff’s designated
service 	notice 	website:
https://cloud.palmerlawgroup.com/index.php/s/6nqUfcDz2kkbQlK.
Case 1:26-cv-26837-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
b. 	Within two (2) business days of receipt of this Order, the third-party e-commerce
platform, here, Walmart, Inc., shall locate and provide any email addresses used by
Defendants to conduct business on the platform.
c. 	The case is CLOSED for administrative purposes pending service of process on
Defendants.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of October, 2026.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-26837-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2026 Page 4 of 4