Coach, Inc. v. Di Da Import & Export, Inc. (d/b/a Di Da New York), No. 13 C 7165, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2015) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).
Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted in part defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) & (5) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process in this Lanham Act case involving the allegedly improper use of plaintiff Coach’s COACH marks on wallets, duffel bags and accessories.
The Court held that an individual defendant was properly served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) by sending the complaint to the individual defendant’s business address by first-class mail. Even if the individual defendant did live in China as claimed, that did not change that his business address was listed as the New York address where he was properly served by mail.
While Coach had not shown sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants, there was jurisdiction over certain individual defendants as Di Da’s corporate officers because Coach had pointed to evidence sufficient to support piercing Di Da’s corporate veil which creates jurisdiction over the individual defendants that are Di Da’s officers.