IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—7th Cir.: Hague Service Convention prohibits service by email in China, district court decision reversed, (Jun 1, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

“Because no provision of the Convention authorizes service by email in China, such service violates the Convention.”

The Hague Service Convention, which governs the service of judicial documents abroad, prohibits service of process by email in China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has held, reversing the district court. The ruling stems from a trademark lawsuit filed by a clothing company against a silk distributor. The three-judge appellate panel found that the Hague Service Convention (Convention) provides the exclusive means of valid service and that no portion of it explicitly allows service by email. While a provision of the Hague Service Convention permits service “by postal channels” when the destination state does not object, the appeals court said it was undisputed that China has objected to service under this provision (Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd., No. 25-2205 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiff-Appellee, Kangol LLC, sued dozens of e-commerce vendors for trademark infringement and counterfeiting relating to hats depicting their kangaroo logo, including Defendant-Appellant, Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. The district court determined that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (also known as the Hague Service Convention) permitted plaintiffs to serve defendants in China by email and allowed Kangol to serve Hangzhou by email. After default judgment was entered, Hangzhou appeared and moved to vacate the judgment for lack of proper service. The district court denied Hangzhou’s motion, and Hangzhou appealed.

Service prohibited to China. In ruling on Hangzhou’s motion, the district court concluded that the Convention permits email service in China. The district court found that the Convention does not expressly authorize service by email, but that the Convention does not prohibit unenumerated methods of service. The district court therefore reasoned that the Convention permits service by email on Defendant-Appellant in China.

The appeals court disagreed, and determined that where the Convention applies, it “sets out the permitted methods of services and excludes all others.” Further, the appeals court concluded that no portion of the Convention explicitly authorizes service by email, but Article 10(a) permits service “by postal channels, directly to persons abroad” when the destination state does not object. 20 U.S.T. at 363. However, the appeals court said it is undisputed that China has objected to service under Article 10(a). The Convention thus does not permit service by email to China, the appeals court said.

Application of Convention. The district court concluded that it did not need to resolve whether the Convention applied given that it found the Convention permits email service to China. But the appeals court said because that conclusion was wrong, the case requires further adjudication. The appeals court remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the Convention applies in this matter. The appeals court said that if the Convention applies, then service was improper.

The Case is No. 25-2205.

Judge: Kirsch, T.

Attorneys: Todd R. Tucker (Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP) for Kangol LLC. Wesley E. Johnson (Cross-Border Counselor LLP) for Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd.

Companies: Kangol LLC; Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark TechnologyInternet IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews