Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk — Seventh Circuit Holds Email Service on Chinese Defendants Improper Under Hague Convention

Background

Kangol LLC, the well-known hat and accessories brand, brought a “Schedule A” trademark counterfeiting action in the Northern District of Illinois against Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., a Chinese company accused of selling counterfeit goods online. The district court authorized service of process by email, a common practice in Schedule A cases where plaintiffs sue large numbers of alleged Chinese counterfeiters who are difficult to serve through traditional channels.

After service by email, the district court entered a default judgment against Hangzhou Chuanyue. The Chinese company then moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing it was void because email service violated the Hague Service Convention — the international treaty governing service of process between signatory nations. China has signed the Convention and has specifically objected to service by postal channels under Article 10. The district court denied the motion, and Hangzhou Chuanyue appealed.

The case attracted significant attention because the Second Circuit had reached a similar conclusion in Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-US in December 2025, holding that the Hague Convention bars email service on Chinese defendants. The Seventh Circuit’s resolution would shape how trademark owners across half the country pursue counterfeiters based in China.

The Court’s Holding

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the Second Circuit that email service is improper when the Hague Service Convention applies and the destination country has objected to service by postal channels. The court reasoned that email is a form of postal-channel communication within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, and China’s objection to postal service therefore bars email service as well.

However, the Seventh Circuit took a more nuanced approach than a blanket prohibition. The court remanded the case for the district court to determine a threshold question: whether the Hague Convention applies at all in this particular case. The Convention applies only when there is an occasion to “transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.” If a defendant can be served domestically — for example, through a domestic agent or a marketplace platform’s registered agent — the Convention may not apply, and alternative service methods including email could remain available.

The court thus vacated the default judgment and sent the case back for a more careful analysis of whether the Convention was implicated before reaching the service-method question.

Key Takeaways

• Email service on Chinese defendants is improper under the Hague Convention. When the Convention applies, trademark owners cannot rely on email as a method of service, consistent with the Second Circuit’s position.
• The threshold question matters. Courts must first determine whether the Convention applies — if a defendant can be served domestically (through a U.S. agent, marketplace platform, or other domestic contact), the Convention may not bar alternative service.
• Schedule A litigation faces new hurdles. Brand owners who rely on mass-defendant counterfeiting suits will need to develop service strategies that either comply with the Convention or establish that the Convention does not apply.
• A circuit split is narrowing. The Seventh Circuit largely aligned with the Second Circuit, creating a growing consensus that the Hague Convention limits email service on foreign defendants in IP cases.

Why It Matters

Schedule A lawsuits are the primary enforcement tool for brands combating online counterfeiting by Chinese sellers. These cases typically name dozens or hundreds of defendants identified only by their online storefront names, and email service has been the default method for reaching them. This ruling — combined with the Second Circuit’s similar decision — forces a fundamental rethinking of how trademark owners serve overseas counterfeiters.

For brand owners, the practical impact is significant: serving defendants through the Hague Convention’s formal channels (typically China’s Central Authority) is slower, more expensive, and often unsuccessful. The Seventh Circuit’s remand instruction offers a potential workaround — if brands can show that defendants have domestic contacts (such as U.S.-based marketplace accounts), they may avoid the Convention’s requirements entirely. Expect creative arguments about domestic service alternatives in Schedule A cases going forward.