OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)(for lack of personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(5)(for insufficient service of process) by Defendants Animefun Store, Bingo 1993, Bingoes Hot Toy Factory, Miliy Store, and Q374428329 (collectively, “the Wang Defendants”).1 (See Wang Defendants’ Mem. of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), dated Oct. 13, 2019 [dkt. no. 69]; see also Plaintiff’s Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), dated November 15, 2019 [dkt. no. 77].)2 For the reasons discussed below, the Wang Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Mattel, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Mattel”) is a widely known designer, developer, marketer, manufacturer, and distributor of various children’s toys and games. (See Complaint (“Compl.”), dated September 26, 2018 [dkt. no. 15] at 58.) Hundreds of millions of consumers know Mattel as the proprietor of worldfamous toy brands such as Barbie, Hot Wheels, Fisher-Price, and American Girl. (Id.) One of Mattel’s most popular brands is UNO, a card game where players begin with seven cards and can win the game by successfully discarding all of the cards in their hand. (Id. 60.) The game is named as such because players with one card remaining in their hand are required to exclaim “Uno!” to other players or otherwise face a penalty. (Id.) UNO is one of the most popular card games in the United States. (Id. 63.) Beyond undertaking extensive marketing efforts to promote the UNO brand, Plaintiff has taken steps to protect its intellectual property rights associated with its UNOrelated products. For example, Mattel is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,005,397 for “UNO” for goods in Class 28 and U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 5,125,593 and 2,008,897 for the wordmark “UNO” in Classes 9 and 28. (Id. 65, Ex. A). Mattel is also the owner of both registered and unregistered copyrights in and related to various iterations of its UNO products. (Id.
68-69). On September 26, 2018 Mattel initiated the present action against the Wang Defendants, as well as numerous others. (See generally Compl.)3 The Wang Defendants are China-based businesses who allegedly maintain and use merchant accounts on e-commerce sites such as Alibaba.com, AliExpress.com, and DHgate.com to sell merchandise to customers located in the United States. (Id.) Mattel’s complaint alleges a menagerie of claims all of which center around the Wang Defendants’ alleged use of those online marketplaces in connection with their alleged “manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale, and/or selling” of counterfeit UNO products. (See Compl. 86.)4 Of relevant note, Mattel’s complaint alleges that the Defendants, including the Wang Defendants, utilized their online marketplace accounts to transact business with consumers located in the United States, including New York, (Compl. 2(e)), and offered shipping to customers in the United States, including to New York, (id. 2(d)).5 Shortly after it initiated this lawsuit, Mattel also moved ex parte against all Defendants for (1) a temporary restraining order; (2) an order restraining assets and Defendants’ merchant storefronts; (3) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued; (4) an order authorizing alternative means of service; and (5) an order authorizing expedited discovery. (See Motion at 2 (citing dkt. nos. 21-24).) On October 4, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application, and specifically authorized alternative service by electronic mail. (See Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), dated October 4, 2019 [dkt. no. 11]). In specific part, the TRO allowed service through: (1) delivery of: (i) PDF copies of the TRO together with the Summons and Complaint, and (ii) a link to a secure website (including Dropbox.com, NutStore.com, a large mail link created through RPost.com and via website publication through a specific page dedicated to his Lawsuit accessible through ipcounselorslawsuit.com) where each Defendant will be able to download PDF copies of the TRO together with the Summons and Complaint, and all papers filed in support of Plaintiff’s Application seeking the TRO to Defendants’ email-addresses, as identified in Schedule A or may otherwise be determined; or (2) delivery of a message to Defendants through the same means that Plaintiff’s agents have previously communicated with Defendants, namely the system for communications established by the Third Party Service Providers on their respective platforms, notifying Defendants that an action has been filed against them in this Court and providing a link to a secure website (such as Dropbox.com, NutStore.com or a large mail link created through RPost.com) where each Defendant will be able to download PDF copies of the TRO together with the Summons and Complaint, and all papers filed in support of Plaintiff’s Application seeking the TRO. (See TRO
