A公司是一家大型中国电商企业，经多年经营积累了大量客户及较高商誉。2018年初，美国某知名品牌眼镜企业在美国伊利诺伊北区联邦法院起诉A公司专利侵权，要求A公司立即停止销售仿冒产品。2018年4月，联邦法院下达此案的临时性禁令（TRO），要求网络平台立刻下架并停止销售涉嫌侵权的太阳镜，并冻结了A公司的账户资产。
The freezing of funds has had a significant impact on the normal operation of Company A, and Company A immediately entrusted a US lawyer to represent the case. After accepting the commission, the lawyer sought a settlement from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff demanded a high settlement amount, which Company A could not accept and had no choice but to respond to the lawsuit. During multiple communications with Company A regarding the specific details of the case, the lawyer learned that the relevant documents were only served to Company A via email. Therefore, in September 2018, the lawyer explicitly proposed a motion to the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, stating that the method of service of official documents did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Hague Convention. The court held that the plaintiff failed to fulfill its due diligence obligations on the premise of obtaining the detailed address of defendant A company under certain conditions. The final judgment dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit and immediately unfrozen A company’s account.
《海牙送达公约》即《关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书公约》规定的送达方式义务目前得到国际社会公认。目前该公约有79个缔约国。美国自1965年起成为该公约的缔约国，1991年我国加入该公约。

The prerequisite for applying the Hague Convention on Service of Service is that the recipient’s valid address can be obtained through effective means. In this case, Company A’s online store page was able to retrieve their actual contact address and conduct tracking, but the plaintiff still chose electronic delivery and did not fulfill their responsibility of researching the defendant’s actual address. Therefore, the court found that the plaintiff’s use of email to serve documents without making reasonable efforts to confirm the defendant’s actual address did not comply with the provisions of the Hague Service of Service Convention.