Facebook, Inc. filed a complaint in the U. S. district court against numerous defendants alleging that the named defendants engaged in trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and false designation of origin. Facebook seeks to enjoin the defendants from engaging in typosquatting schemes whereby the defendants register Internet domain names that are confusingly similar to facebook.com (e.g., facebook. com); thus potential users of Facebook’s website who enter a typographical error are diverted to the typesquatter’s website, which is designed to look strikingly similar in appearance to Facebook’s website, to trick users into thinking that they are using Facebook’s website. Facebook served all of the defendants except fourteen, who Facebook has not been able to serve personally, by mail, or by telephone. Facebook made a motion to the U. S. district court to be permitted to serve these defendants by sending an e mail notice to the defendants’ websites. May Facebook use alternative service of process by sending e mail notices to the defendants’ websites? Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads LLC, 2013 U. S. Dist. Lexis 65834 (2013) (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2012)