Ulysses GmbH & Co. KG v. UlyssesWindows.com, 2:18-cv-00202

Ulysses GmbH sued operators of the domain UlyssesWindows.com and unnamed Doe defendants for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and false advertising, alleging a counterfeit “Ulysses for Windows” app.
Early discovery from the domain registrar showed the domain was registered via the account "sunisoft," tied to two individuals: Shen Min (China) and Catalina Del Castillo (Brazil).
Plaintiff obtained postal addresses (China and Brazil) and email addresses for both alleged registrants and seeks court authorization to serve Del Castillo by private courier and Min by email.
Plaintiff moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) (mail/courier methods) and 4(f)(3) (alternative service) for foreign service of process.
The court evaluated whether proposed methods were prohibited by international agreements (Hague Convention) and whether alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) met due-process standards.
The court denied the motion without prejudice and gave Plaintiff 30 days to serve defendants in accordance with Rule 4(f) and the Hague Convention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether private courier service to Del Castillo in Brazil is permitted under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) given international agreements	Private courier to the Brazilian address is reasonably calculated to give notice and does not conflict with the Inter-American Convention	Service by private courier is inconsistent with Brazil's declarations under the Hague Convention, which restricts alternative means	Denied: Private courier service to Brazil is prohibited by Brazil's Hague Convention declaration; Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) not available here
Whether alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) (e.g., email) should be authorized	Alternative service is warranted because service via Inter-American channels can be problematic and Plaintiff has contact info (emails and physical addresses)	Plaintiff has not shown necessity: addresses were identified, no evidence defendants are evading service, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated facts necessitating court-ordered alternative service	Denied without prejudice: Plaintiff failed to show particularized need or that alternative service is consistent with due process and international obligations

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1988) (Hague Convention establishes central-authority service as principal means and governs permissible alternative methods)
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for Rule 4(f)(3) alternative service; due-process analysis)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due-process standard: notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Sun v. Kao, 170 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (example permitting service by email where address unknown and urgent need shown)