U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has expressed reservations about a recent Second Circuit decision that mandates mail service to alleged Chinese infringers of “Baby Shark” trademarks. This ruling, he suggested, could impede efforts by companies like Google to combat global phishing scams originating from China.
The case in question involves Smart Study Co., Ltd., a South Korean entertainment company that owns the “Baby Shark” trademarks. Smart Study filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against numerous China-based entities accused of selling counterfeit “Baby Shark” merchandise. The company attempted to serve these defendants via email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). However, the Second Circuit concluded that the Hague Service Convention prohibits email service to defendants in China, affirming the district court’s dismissal of two defendants for improper service. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/24-313/24-313-2025-12-18.html?utm_source=openai))
Judge Rakoff’s critique highlights the challenges posed by this precedent, particularly for tech companies like Google. In a recent case, Google sought to address a global phishing scheme allegedly operated by China-based actors. The requirement for mail service, as dictated by the Second Circuit’s decision, complicates the process of serving foreign defendants, potentially hindering swift legal action against such schemes. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/articles/2428551?utm_source=openai))
The Second Circuit’s ruling underscores the complexities of international service of process, especially when dealing with defendants in countries that are parties to the Hague Service Convention. While the Convention aims to streamline and standardize the service of judicial documents abroad, its provisions can sometimes create obstacles for plaintiffs seeking to address cross-border infringements and cybercrimes.
Legal professionals and corporations must now navigate these procedural requirements carefully, balancing the need for effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and cybersecurity measures with adherence to international legal standards. The debate sparked by Judge Rakoff’s comments suggests that further judicial and legislative clarification may be necessary to address the practical challenges posed by the current framework for serving foreign defendants.