Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Zhejiang Weidu Garment Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 17, 2016

LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Plaintiff,
v.
ZHEJIANG WEIDU GARMENT CO., LTD. et al., Defendants.

          Kevin W. Guynn Amy C. Ziegler Justin R. Gaudio Jessica L. Bloodgood Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. Counsel for Plaintiff Levi Strauss & Co.

          Maria Valdez Magistrate Judge

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

         yogee-mall, one of the many defendants in this action brought by Levi Strauss & Co. ("Levi Strauss") charging the pirating of its federally registered trademarks by a host of claimed infringers, has filed a motion (1) for its dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) and (2) to quash the substituted service on it that this Court had authorized based on submissions made by counsel for Levi Strauss. yogee-mall contends that such substituted service was unauthorized because Levi Strauss was obligated to pursue the method prescribed by the Hague Convention instead. Levi Strauss' counsel has just filed its response to the yogee-mall motion, and that response torpedoes the motion because it has been based on demonstrably false assertions on the part of yogee-mall.[1] What deep-sixes the yogee-mall motion is stated at the outset of the Hague Convention in its Article I:

This Convention shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.

         It is unnecessary for this Court to replicate the entire voluminous submission by Levi Strauss' counsel that is the product of the extensive investigative effort that it was forced to undertake because of the bogus assertions advanced by yogee-mall. Instead this Court attaches the current Levi Strauss response (Dkt. No. 48) as its own and attaches the text of that response (but none of its bulky exhibits) to this opinion.

         In sum, yogee-mall's motion (Dkt. No. 45) is denied, and no further status hearing date is set in this action. This Court will await a motion by Levi Strauss for the entry of a final judgment order terminating this case when its counsel deems that appropriate.

         PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT YOGEE MALL'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(5) AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

         Plaintiff Levi Strauss & Co. (“LS&Co.”) hereby files its response to Defendant yogee-mall's Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and Motion to Quash Service [45] (the “Motion”).

         INTRODUCTION

         Defendant yogee-mall (“Defendant”) is a repeat counterfeiter[1] that offered for sale and sold unauthorized and unlicensed products using counterfeits of LS&Co.'s federally registered trademarks on at least an eBay storefront. Article 1 of the Hague Convention states that “[t]his Convention shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.” Id. Declaration of Allyson Martin (the “Martin Declaration”) at ¶ 2, [45] at p. 4. Defendant's Motion is premised on the fact that it has supplied a known physical address, so the Hague Convention is “mandatory.” [45] at p. 2. However, LS&Co.'s investigation of Defendant has revealed that Defendant's “physical address” is incomplete and fictitious.

         Specifically, Defendant's Motion [45] alleges that Defendant has a “known” physical address at 1225 Room, Qian Jin Business Building No.1 Building, Tian He District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, China.” [45] at p. 2. However, LS&Co.'s China based investigator has verified that Defendant's represented “physical address” is an incomplete, fictitious address. This address lacks a street name and number. Room 1225 does not even exist in the Qian Jin Business Building that LS&Co. was able to locate based on Defendant's incomplete address. Declaration of Lily Fu (the “Fu Declaration”) at ¶ 4. No business called “yogee-mall” has offices in the Qian Jin Business Building. Id. No business called “yogee-mall” is registered in the company register managed by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, which is the Chinese equivalent of the “Yellow Pages.” Id. at ¶ 5. No address is provided on its eBay Internet store. Martin Declaration at ¶ 7.

         Defendant's address was not known when this case was filed and remains unknown, so the Hague Convention does not apply. As such, this Court's Order [24] permitting LS&Co. to complete service of process to Defendant via email pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) remains proper, and Defendant's Motion should be denied. In addition, this Court should award fees and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.