Business Law 9th Edition by Henry Cheeseman

تمرين 1

FEDERAL COURT CASE Service of Process
Chanel, Inc. v. Zhixian
2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50745 (2010)
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
"Thus, in this instance, service by e-mail satisfies due process."
-Cohn, District Judge
Facts
Chanel, Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing throughout the world various luxury goods, including handbags, wallets, and numerous other products under the federally registered trademark "Chanel" and monogram marks. Its principal place of business is in New York City. Chanel filed a lawsuit in the U.S. district court against defendant Liu Zhixian, a resident of China, doing business through the following websites: chanel2u.com, chanel4u.com, chanel-belts.com, chanelbikini.com, chanel-rings.com, chanel-sandals.com, chanel-scarf.com, chanelswimwear.com, and chaneltalk.com. Chanel alleges trademark infringement by the defendant. Chanel's agent in China could not locate the defendant for service of process because the defendant used false, incomplete, or invalid addresses and phone numbers to register the domain names. However, e-mail addresses that the defendant provided when registering the domain names are currently active. Plaintiff Chanel made a motion for an order authorizing service of the summons and complaint on the defendant via electronic mail to these e-mail addresses.
Issue
Should the court grant plaintiff Chanel authority to serve the defendant by e-mail?
Language of the Court
The court is reasonably satisfied that service upon defendant via e-mail is reasonably calculated to notify defendant of the pendency of this action and provide him with an opportunity to present objections. Thus, in this instance, service by e-mail satisfies due process. In the abundance of caution, the court will require plaintiff to serve defendant via public announcement in accordance with Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
Decision
The U.S. district court granted plaintiff Chanel's motion for alternative service of process on the defendant.
Is it ethical for a person to infringe on the trademarks of others? Is it likely that the defendant, if served by e-mail, will defend this case?