Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd.

── Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-2205 KANGOL LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANGZHOU CHUANYUE SILK IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. 24-cv-01636 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 25, 2026 — DECIDED MAY 29, 2026 ____________________ Before KIRSCH, JACKSON-AKIWUMI, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Kangol LLC brought a trademark in- fringement and counterfeiting action against dozens of e- commerce vendors. According to Kangol, most of the defend- ants reside in China, including Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Im- port & Export Co., Ltd. A recurring question in these types of lawsuits, often referred to as Schedule A cases, is whether the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 2 No. 25-2205 Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Service Convention) permits plaintiffs to serve defend- ants in China by email. Believing that it does, the district court allowed Kangol to serve Hangzhou by email. After default judgment was entered, Hangzhou eventually appeared and moved to vacate the judgment for lack of proper service. The court denied Hangzhou’s motion, reasoning that the Hague Service Convention permits service by email in China. We conclude the opposite; the Convention prohibits email service in China. However, the district court must decide whether the Convention applies at all. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I Kangol LLC is a clothing company known for hats depict- ing its kangaroo logo. In February 2024, Kangol sued 25 de- fendants, including Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Ex- port Co., Ltd., for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, un- fair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) (trademark infringement and counterfeiting); id. § 1125(a) (unfair competition and false designation of origin); id. § 1125(c) (trademark dilution). According to Kangol’s com- plaint, the defendants are all e-commerce vendors selling products on platforms like Alibaba, and most of them are based in China. Suits of this nature are known as Schedule A cases, because—as here—the defendants are identified in a Schedule A document filed with the complaint. See Eicher Mo- tors Ltd. v. P’ships and Unincorporated Assn’s Identified on Sched- ule “A”, 794 F. Supp. 3d 543, 546 (N.D. Ill. 2025) (discussing Schedule A cases). No. 25-2205 3 As is common in Schedule A cases, Kangol moved for a temporary restraining order and for permission to effect ser- vice by email. In support of the request for email service, Kan- gol represented that it was “very difficult” to ascertain the true identities and locations of the defendants “given that [they] are primarily Chinese entities that sell counterfeit goods on online sales platforms and typically do not disclose reliable information about their identities and locations in connection with their online storefronts[.]” The district court approved Kangol’s request for service by email and entered a temporary restraining order. Shortly thereafter, in April 2024, Kangol sent Hangzhou an email containing a link to the complaint, temporary re- straining order, summons, and other documents. The same day, Hangzhou reached out to Kangol to begin settlement ne- gotiations. And over the next several months, until February 2025, se