Seventh Circuit: No Email Service on Defendants in China, Putting Schedule A Default Judgments at Risk

What happened

On May 29, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. (No. 25-2205). The Seventh Circuit hears appeals from the Northern District of Illinois, the busiest court for Schedule A cases.

Background: Kangol sued 25 e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 24-cv-01636). The district court allowed email service, entered a TRO, and in May 2024 entered a default judgment against the Hangzhou seller, after which Kangol collected part of the judgment from the seller’s Amazon account. The seller moved to vacate the judgment as void for improper service; the district court denied the motion, and the seller appealed.

Holding: The Seventh Circuit reversed. Where the Hague Service Convention applies, it is exclusive, and because China objected to the Article 10 methods, email service on defendants in China is prohibited. In the court’s words: “the Convention prohibits email service in China.”

The case was remanded for the district court to decide whether the Convention applies, which turns on whether the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to find the defendant’s address. Under Article 1, the Convention does not apply when the address is not known.

Why it matters

The standard Schedule A playbook has been: email service, no appearance, default judgment, then collection from marketplace funds. This decision undercuts that model:

• Default judgments resting on email service may be void. Where the seller’s address could be found, a default judgment based only on email service may be vacated under Rule 60(b)(4).
• Defendants are already using it. Law.com reported on September 16, 2026 that a Schedule A defendant succeeded in vacating a default under the ruling.
• Other circuits agree. The Second Circuit reached the same conclusion in Smart Study (December 2025).

Limits to keep in mind

• The “address unknown” exception remains. If a plaintiff shows it diligently tried and failed to find a physical address, email service may still be allowed. Whether a seller’s posted business address is real and findable may become a key issue.
• Service is procedural. A service defect does not mean the infringement claim fails, and whether to seek vacatur depends on the facts of each case.

Our suggestions

• Sellers who suffered a default judgment and had funds taken should have counsel assess whether service was proper and whether vacatur is available
• Sellers in a pending case can treat service defects as one source of settlement leverage, but should not let deadlines pass because of it

Sources

• Seventh Circuit opinion: Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205 (May 29, 2026)
• Transnational Litigation Blog: Seventh Circuit Limits Email Service on Foreign Defendants
• Law.com: Schedule A Defendant Succeeds in Vacating Default Under Major 7th Circuit Ruling (Sept. 16, 2026)