Background
Kangol LLC sued dozens of e-commerce vendors, including Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd., for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Most defendants were based in China. Kangol sought and obtained permission to serve defendants by email, arguing it was difficult to locate them. The district court allowed email service, entered a default judgment, and directed third parties to release funds to Kangol. Hangzhou later appeared and moved to vacate the judgment, arguing the service violated the Hague Service Convention.
The court’s reasoning
The Seventh Circuit analyzed the text and structure of the Hague Service Convention, concluding it provides the exclusive means of service where it applies. The court found that no provision of the Convention authorizes service by email in China, and China has objected to service under Article ten. The court rejected the district court’s reasoning that unenumerated methods are permitted. The court also addressed waiver and timeliness arguments, finding Hangzhou did not waive its objection and filed its motion to vacate within a reasonable time after learning of enforcement efforts. The court declined to decide if the Convention applies because the district court did not resolve whether the defendants’ addresses were known.
We conclude the opposite; the Convention prohibits email service in China.
Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd., No. 25-2205 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026)
What it means going forward
Plaintiffs in Schedule A cases involving Chinese defendants can no longer rely on email service as a valid method under the Hague Service Convention. District courts must now determine if the Convention applies to the specific facts, including whether the defendant’s address is known, before allowing alternative service methods.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download