Silver Fish International v. Yuan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
SILVER FISH INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAIFANG YUAN, an individual; and
ZHENGZHOURUIJIHEDIANZI-
SHANGWUYOUXIANGONGSI, a Chinese
entity,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ORDER AUTHORIZING
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS (DOC. NO. 6)
Case No. 2:25-cv-00727
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Silver Fish International, LLC, brought this copyright infringement action against
Kaifang Yuan, an individual residing in China, and
Zhengzhouruijihedianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, an entity based in China.1 Silver Fish
moves for leave to effect service by email—specifically, email to the defendants’ United
States-based counsel recently retained to obtain a trademark for one of their online
businesses.2 Because service by email is permissible under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and not prohibited by international agreement—and service by
email to the defendants’ attorney is reasonably calculated to provide notice and an
opportunity to respond—Silver Fish’s motion is granted.
1 (See generally Compl., Doc. No. 2.)
2 (Ex Parte Mot. for Alt. Serv. (Mot.), Doc. No. 6.)
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 8

2
BACKGROUND
In August 2025, Silver Fish brought this copyright infringement action, claiming
the defendants unlawfully copied its instruction manuals and included the infringing
manuals with knock-off competing products the defendants sold online.3 According to
Silver Fish, Mr. Yuan owns and operates
Zhengzhouruijihedianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, a Chinese entity based in Zhengzhou.4
The defendants do business as BakeArt and RusicEss, primarily through online sales
via Amazon and Ebay.5 And they filed for a RusicEss trademark in January 2025,
which was formally registered in September 2025.6 Mr. Yuan is the registered owner of
the trademark and the associated address is in China.7 This is the only physical
address Silver Fish has located associated with the defendants, BakeArt, or RusicEss.8
But further searches did not confirm this.9
However, Silver Fish has identified information for the defendants’ trademark
counsel based in the United States. According to the trademark report, Norman R. Van
3 (Compl. ¶¶ 31–63, Doc. No. 2.)
4 (Id. ¶¶ 2–3, 5.)
5 (Id. ¶¶ 4, 31–32; Mot. ¶ 8, Doc. No. 6.)
6 (Mot. ¶ 9, Doc. No. 6; Decl. of Michael Eixenberger in Supp. of Mot. (Eixenberger
Decl.) ¶ 11 & Ex. A to Eixenberger Decl. 1, Doc. No. 6-1.)
7 (Mot. ¶ 11, Doc. No. 6; Eixenberger Decl. ¶¶ 7–10 & Ex. A to Eixenberger Decl. 1,
Doc. No. 6-1.)
8 (Eixenberger Decl. ¶ 9, Doc. No. 6-1.)
9 (Id. ¶ 10.)
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 8

3
Treeck is the attorney of record for the defendants’ trademark action.10 The report lists
Mr. Van Treeck’s California mailing address and two email addresses,11 but it does not
list email addresses for the defendants themselves.12 And other than the information in
the trademark report, Silver Fish has been unable to identify email addresses,
registered agents, business registrations, or company websites for the defendants,
BakeArt, or RusicEss.13 Accordingly, Silver Fish seeks leave to serve the defendants
by email to Mr. Van Treeck.14
LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 4(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a foreign
corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated association may be served outside the
United States “in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except
personal delivery.”15 Rule 4(f) governs service of an individual outside the United
States and permits service as follows:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably
calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Documents;
10 (Mot. ¶ 10, Doc. No. 6; Ex. A to Eixenberger Decl. 1, Doc. No. 6-1.)
11 (Ex. A to Eixenberger Decl. 1, Doc. No. 6-1 (listing P.O. Box 3399, Landers,
California, 92285, and norman@pasadenapatents.com and
asmtmtracking@outlook.com under “Attorney/Correspondence Information”).)
12 (See id.)
13 (Mot. ¶ 14, Doc. No. 6; Eixenberger Decl. ¶¶ 12–13, Doc. No. 6-1.)
14 (Mot. 7, Doc. No. 6.)
15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2).
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 8

4
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if international
agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is
reasonably calculated to give notice [as enumerated in subsections (A)–
(C)]; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court
orders.16
Rule 4(f) does not create a hierarchy of preferred methods of service, and parties
are not required to comply with Rule 4(f)(1) or (2) before seeking service under
Rule 4(f)(3).17 The relevant inquiry under Rule 4(f)(3) is whether the requested method
of service is prohibited by international agreement, including the Hague Convention.18
A method of service authorized under Rule 4(f)(3) must also comport with constitutional
notions of due process, meaning it must be “reasonably calculated to provide notice and
an opportunity to respond.”19
ANALYSIS
Silver Fish’s proposed method of service is permissible under Rule 4(f)(3). First,
service by email is not prohibited by international agreement. China is a signatory to
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).
17 See, e.g., Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002);
Neck Hammock, Inc. v. Danezen.com, No. 2:20-cv-00287, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
202808, at *8 (D. Utah Oct. 29, 2020) (unpublished).
18 Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B.
de C.V., 970 F.3d 1269, 1294 (10th Cir. 2020); Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1015 n.4; Neck
Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *9.
19 Neck Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *11–12 (quoting Rio Props., 284
F.3d at 1017).
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 8

5
the Hague Convention.20 The Hague Convention does not expressly prohibit service by
email, and courts in this district and other jurisdictions have permitted service by email
under Rule 4(f)(3).21 Likewise, the Hague Convention does not expressly prohibit
service through a foreign defendant’s United States-based counsel, and the Tenth
Circuit has approved this method of service under Rule 4(f)(3).22 In other words, Silver
Fish’s proposal to serve the defendants via email to their United States counsel is not
prohibited by international agreement—the first requirement of Rule 4(f)(3).
Second, Silver Fish’s proposed service method comports with constitutional
notions of due process because it is “reasonably calculated to provide notice and an
20 See Contracting Parties, Hague Conference on Private International Law,
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=17
[https://perma.cc/B99R-65TG].
21 See, e.g., Neck Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *11–12;
Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder, Inc., No. C 06-06572, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
31299, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2007) (unpublished). China has objected to Article
10 of the Hague Convention, which permits service “by postal channels, directly to
persons abroad” only if the “State of destination does not object.” 20 U.S.T. 361, art.
10(a); Hague Conference on Private International Law,
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/statustable/notifications/?csid=393&di
sp=resdn [https://perma.cc/94RU-S8FG] (translation of China’s declaration of opposition
to Article 10). Courts are split as to whether a country’s objection to Article 10(a) is an
objection to service by email, but the majority have concluded it is not. See Neck
Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *10; see also Deseret Book Co. v. Nanjing
Lian Yidu Trading Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00961, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10690, at *8–9
(D. Utah Jan. 21, 2025) (unpublished) (collecting cases and finding email service not
prohibited even though China objected to Article 10 of the Hague Convention).
22 See Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A., 970 F.3d at 1294–95 (noting
“numerous courts have authorized alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3), including
[s]ervice upon a foreign defendant’s United States-based counsel, in cases involving
countries that have objected to the alternative forms of service permitted under Article
10 of the Hague Convention” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 8

6
opportunity to respond.”23 Service of process by email meets constitutional due process
requirements.24 And courts often permit service on foreign defendants through their
retained United States counsel, regardless of whether counsel is specifically authorized
to accept service.25
In this case, service via email to the defendants’ trademark counsel, Mr. Van
Treeck, is reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond. Mr.
Yuan owns and operates Zhengzhouruijihedianzishangwuyouxiangongsi.26 He is the
owner of the RusicEss trademark registered in September 2025.27 And Mr. Van Treeck
is his California-based attorney of record for that contemporaneous trademark action.28
Where Mr. Van Treeck has represented Mr. Yuan as recently as September 2025, and
where the defendants are based in China and do business primarily through online
23 Neck Hammock, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202808, at *12 (quoting Rio Props., 284 F.3d
at 1017).
24 See, e.g., DoTerra Holdings v. Zkouty, No. 2:22-cv-00529, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
163849, at *4 (D. Utah Sept. 13, 2023) (unpublished) (noting “service by email is likely
the most effective way to notify Defendants of this case”); DP Creations, LLC v. Reborn
Baby Mart, No. 2:21-cv-00574, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266076, at *20 (D. Utah, Nov. 22,
2021) (unpublished) (“In this case, email service clearly comports with constitutional
notions of due process.”); Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1017 (concluding “[w]ithout hesitation”
that service of process by email met constitutional due process requirements).
25 See Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A., 970 F.3d at 1295 (collecting cases).
26 (Compl. ¶¶ 2–5, 31–32, Doc. No. 2; Mot. ¶ 8, Doc. No. 6)
27 (Eixenberger Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. A to Eixenberger Decl. 1, Doc. No. 6-1.)
28 (Ex. A to Eixenberger Decl. 1, Doc. No. 6-1 (trademark report listing a mailing
address at P.O. Box 3399, Landers, California, 92285, and two email addresses—
norman@pasadenapatents.com and asmtmtracking@outlook.com—for Mr. Van
Treeck).)
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 8

7
sales,29 service by email to Mr. Van Treeck will likely be the best way to effect service of
process on the defendants.30 Accordingly, the proposed method of comports with due
process—the second requirement of Rule 4(f)(3).
CONCLUSION
Because Silver Fish’s proposed method of serving the defendants by email to
their trademark counsel is not prohibited by international agreement and comports with
constitutional notions of due process, the motion31 is granted. Silver Fish may serve the
defendants by doing the following:
1. 	Silver Fish must send a summons, the complaint, and a copy of this order to Mr.
Van Treeck at defendantsnorman@pasadenapatents.com and
asmtmtracking@outlook.com; and
2. 	Silver Fish must do so three times per week for two consecutive weeks, but not
more often than once every other day, unless and until Mr. Van Treeck responds
acknowledging receipt of service.
29 Silver Fish has been unable to locate any contact information for the defendants.
(See Eixenberger Decl. ¶¶ 12–13, Doc. No. 6-1 (attesting to the inability to find contact
information, including email addresses or company websites, registered agents,
business registrations, or other information (beyond unverifiable addresses in China for
the defendants, BakeArt, or RusicEss), apart from the information in the trademark
report).)
30 See, e.g., Deseret Book, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10690, at *9–10 (concluding service
of process by email comported with due process where it was likely the best, if not the
only, means of effecting service of process on the defendant, an e-commerce company
based in China).
31 (Doc. No. 6.)
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 8

8
Service of these defendants shall be deemed complete upon completion of these
steps. Silver Fish shall file proof of compliance with this order, and the deadline to
serve these defendants is extended to March 4, 2026.
DATED this 17th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00727-HCN-DAO Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 8