Marriott Moves to Serve Mexican Robocall Defendants via Publication and Email
Despite “diligent efforts” to serve two Mexican robocall defendants through the Mexican Central Authority under the Hague Convention, Marriott International “has been unable to confirm service,” said the company’s memorandum Friday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
in Alexandria in support of its motion for service by publication and email. Marriott filed suit in May 2021 against multiple defendants alleging unauthorized use of the its trademark in international robocall scams and asserting claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising under the Lanham Act (see 2210070013). To promote prompt service of the Mexican defendants under the Hague Convention, Marriott paid its translation and service vendor to request status updates from the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs at “regular intervals,” said the memorandum. The company also hired Mexican counsel, and that counsel “agreed to serve as Marriott’s representative before the Mexican district courts to further facilitate completion of Hague service,” it said. That counsel “contacted each court to ensure that service attempts were made in a timely fashion,” it said. Before filing its motion, Marriott “pressed” the ministry “for a status update on service but received no assurances,” said the memorandum. The company is unable to confirm Hague service on the Mexican defendants “for various reasons,” it said. On occasion, the ministry responded that an address for the Mexican defendants was either incorrect or that the individuals at the location claimed that another business operates there, it said. When the ministry deemed that multiple addresses were incorrect, Marriott confirmed that it had obtained those service addresses from corporate records the Mexican defendants filed with the Mexican government, which Marriott secured from a vendor, it said. The company worries that the Mexican defendants are running a “shell game,” it said. “Marriott understands that a frequent method of attempting to avoid service of process in Mexico is to claim that multiple businesses operate at an address,” it said. When process arrives for one entity, the occupants “present a license for another business purportedly operating at that location without disclosing that the named entity also operates there,” it said. To avoid further efforts “that are likely to result in the same inconclusive results,” Marriott files this motion for alternate service, said the memorandum.