GS Holistic LLC v. Imam Corporation Inc et al, No. 2:2023cv00315 - Document 31 (W.D. Wash. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court GRANTS GS Holistic's request for entry of default judgment against Mukilteo Smoke Shop and Mr. Ahmed; AWARDS GS Holistic statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 and litigation costs in the amount of $827.00; and DENIES GS Holistic's requests for entry of a permanent injunction and for an order directing the destruction of infringing products. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GS Holistic LLC v. Imam Corporation Inc et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 GS HOLISTIC, LLC, CASE NO. C23-0315JLR ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 IMAM CORPORATION INC., et al, Defendants. 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC’s (“GS Holistic”) motion for entry 17 of default judgment against Defendants Imam Corporation Inc., d/b/a Mukilteo Smoke 18 Shop (“Mukilteo Smoke Shop”) and Ayaz Ahmed (together, “Defendants”). (Mot. (Dkt. 19 # 26); see Prop. Judgment (Dkt. # 26-3).) Neither Defendant has appeared in this action, 20 and the Clerk has entered default against both Defendants. (See Dkt.; 12/13/23 Entry of 21 Default (Dkt. # 22).) The court has considered GS Holistic’s motion, the materials it 22 submitted in support of its motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part GS Holistic’s 2 motion for entry of default judgment. 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 GS Holistic is a Delaware limited liability corporation (“LLC”) that has its 5 principal place of business in California. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 8) ¶ 4.) It alleges that it is 6 the owner of the “STÜNDENGLASS” trademark, has worked to distinguish the 7 Stündenglass brand as “the premier manufacturer of glass infusers,” and has devoted 8 significant time and resources promoting and protecting its trademark. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 7-9, 14.) 9 GS Holistic has registered the following trademarks: (1) U.S. Trademark Registration 10 No. 6,633,884 “for the standard character mark ‘Stündenglass’ in association with goods 11 further identified in registration in international class 011”; (2) U.S. Trademark 12 Registration No. 6,174,292 “for the design plus words mark ‘S’ and its logo in 13 association with goods further identified in the registration in international class 034”; 14 and (3) U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,174,291 “for the standard character mark 15 ‘Stündenglass’ in association with goods further identified in registration in international 16 class 034” (together, the “Stündenglass Marks”). (Id. ¶ 10; see also Mot., Ex. A 17 (screenshots of pages from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark 18 Electronic Search System that describe each trademark).) GS Holistic asserts that 19 consumers are willing to pay more for “the recognized quality and innovation associated 20 with the Stündenglass Marks.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 20.) Thus, genuine Stündenglass glass 21 infusers are priced at $599.95, while non-Stündenglass infusers sell for between $199.00 22 and $600.00. (Id.) ORDER - 2 1 Defendant Mukilteo Smoke Shop is a Washington corporation that has its 2 principal place of business in Washington. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant Ayaz Ahmed is a 3 resident and citizen of Washington. (Id. ¶ 6.) GS Holistic asserts that Defendants sold 4 counterfeit products bearing the Stündenglass Marks. (Id. ¶¶ 24-27.) On December 5, 5 2022, according to GS Holistic, its investigator visited Mukilteo Smoke Shop’s location; 6 observed that the shop had “an excess” of glass infusers that displayed the Stündenglass 7 Marks; purchased a glass infuser “with a Stündenglass Mark affixed to it” for $420.28; 8 and determined the glass infuser was a counterfeit product that displayed “the Infringing 9 Marks.” (Id. ¶ 29; see also id. ¶ 25 (defining the “Infringing Marks” as “reproductions, 10 counterfeits, copies, and/or colorable imitations of one or more of the Stündenglass 11 Marks”).) 12 GS Holistic filed its complaint on March 6, 2023. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 1.) It 13 amended its complaint on April 10, 2023. (See Am. Compl.) It alleges claims under the 14 Lanham Act against both Defendants for counterfeiting and trademark infringement in 15 violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and for false designation of origin and unfair competition 16 in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (Id. ¶¶ 51-68.) Among other relief, it seeks 17 damages, costs of suit, a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to 18 infringe its Stündenglass trademarks, and an order requiring Defendants to deliver all 19 infringing products to GS Holistic for destruction. (Id. at 12-14.) 20 21 GS Holistic served Mukilteo Smoke Shop on May 9, 2023, and Mr. Ahmed on September 6, 2023. (See Service Affs. (Dkt. ## 12, 19).) The Clerk entered default on 22 ORDER - 3 1 December 13, 2023. (Entry of Default.) GS Holistic filed this motion for entry of default 2 judgment on March 7, 2024. (Mot.) 3 III. 4 ANALYSIS Below, the court sets forth the relevant legal standard and then evaluates GS 5 Holistic’s motion for entry of default judgment. 6 A. Legal Standard 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) authorizes the court to enter default 8 judgment against a defaulting defendant upon the plaintiff’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 55(a), (b)(2). After default is entered, well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, 10 except those related to damages, are considered admitted and are sufficient to establish a 11 defendant’s liability. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 12 1987) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). 13 Entry of default judgment is left to the court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 14 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In exercising its discretion, the court considers 15 seven factors (the “Eitel factors”): (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief 16 is denied; (2) the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claims; (3) the sufficiency of the 17 claims raised in the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in relationship to the 18 defendant’s behavior; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; 19 (6) whether default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the preference for decisions on 20 the merits when reasonably possible. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 21 1986). After the court determines that default judgment is appropriate, it must then 22 ORDER - 4 1 determine the amount and character of the relief that should be awarded. See TeleVideo, 2 826 F.2d at 917-18. 3 B. 4 Whether the Eitel Factors Favor Default Judgment The court preliminarily determines that default judgment is warranted in this case 5 because, on balance, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of such judgment. The court 6 discusses each factor in turn. 7 1. 8 The first Eitel factor considers whether the plaintiff will suffer prejudice if default Possibility of Prejudice to Plaintiff 9 judgment is not entered. See PepsiCo, Inc., v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 10 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Without default judgment, GS Holistic will suffer prejudice 11 because it will “be denied the right to judicial resolution” of its claims and will be 12 “without other recourse for recovery.” Elektra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 13 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Thus, the first Eitel factor weighs in favor of entering default 14 judgment. 15 2. 16 The second and third Eitel factors—the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claim Substantive Merits and Sufficiency of the Complaint 17 and the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint—are frequently analyzed together. 18 PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1175. For these two factors to weigh in favor of default 19 judgment, the complaint’s allegations must be sufficient to state a claim for relief. 20 Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978). A complaint satisfies this 21 standard when it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 22 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting ORDER - 5 1 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, 570 (2007)). At the default judgment 2 stage, the court “must take the well-pleaded factual allegations [in the complaint] as true” 3 but “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally 4 insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 5 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 GS Holistic alleges claims for trademark counterfeiting and infringement under 15 7 U.S.C. § 1114 and false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 8 § 1125(a). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51-68.) The court reviews each in turn. 9 10 a. Trademark Counterfeiting and Infringement To prove liability for trademark infringement, the trademark holder must 11 demonstrate: (1) “ownership of a valid mark (i.e., a protectable interest)”; and (2) the 12 alleged infringer’s use of the mark “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to 13 deceive” consumers. Reno Air Racing Ass’n., v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1134 (9th Cir. 14 2006) (quoting KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596, 15 602 (9th Cir. 2005)). 16 First, uncontested proof that the plaintiff has registered the mark is sufficient to 17 establish ownership of a valid mark. Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 18 1124 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, because GS Holistic alleges that it registered the 19 Stündenglass Marks, it satisfies the first element of trademark infringement for the 20 purpose of default judgment. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10; see Mot. at A.) 21 22 Second, “[l]ikelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the mark would probably assume that the goods it represents are associated with the source of a ORDER - 6 1 different product identified by a similar mark.” KP Permanent Make-Up, 408 F.3d at 2 608. Courts generally evaluate eight factors to determine whether confusion is likely: 3 “1) the strength of the mark; 2) proximity or relatedness of the goods; 3) the similarity of 4 the marks; 4) evidence of actual confusion; 5) the marketing channels used; 6) the degree 5 of care customers are likely to exercise in purchasing the goods; 7) the defendant’s intent 6 in selecting the mark; and 8) the likelihood of expansion into other markets.” Id. Where 7 a defendant uses a counterfeit mark, however, courts both within and outside the Ninth 8 Circuit presume a likelihood of consumer confusion. See Coach, Inc. v. Pegasus Theater 9 Shops, No. C12-1631MJP, 2013 WL 5406220, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2013) 10 (compiling cases); see also Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse 11 Corp., 689 F. Supp. 2d 585, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“To find a likelihood of confusion, a 12 court need only determine that the items at issue are counterfeit and that the defendant 13 distributed, offered for sale, or sold the items.”). The Lanham Act defines a “counterfeit” 14 as “a spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a 15 registered mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. 16 Here, GS Holistic alleges that its investigator purchased a glass infuser with a 17 Stündenglass Mark “affixed” to it and determined that it was a counterfeit product that 18 displayed the “the Infringing Marks.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 29.) GS Holistic further alleges 19 that the “Infringing Marks” are “reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable 20 imitations of one or more of the Stündenglass Marks.” (Id. ¶ 25.) Accordingly, the court 21 concludes that GS Holistic has sufficiently alleged that Defendants sold a product bearing 22 a counterfeit mark and, as a result, there is a presumption of consumer confusion. See ORDER - 7 1 Coach, Inc., 2013 WL 5406220, at *3. Thus, because GS Holistic has demonstrated that 2 it owns a valid mark and that Defendants’ use of the mark is likely to cause consumer 3 confusion, the court concludes that GS Holistic has sufficiently alleged its trademark 4 counterfeiting and infringement claim. 5 6 b. False Designation of Origin To show liability for false designation of origin, the plaintiff must show that the 7 defendant “(1) use[d] in commerce (2) any word, false designation of origin, false or 8 misleading description, or representation of fact, which (3) is likely to cause confusion or 9 misrepresents the characteristics of his or another person’s goods or services.” Freecycle 10 Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2007). As to the first two elements, GS 11 Holistic alleges that Defendants sold (and thus, used in commerce) at least one glass 12 infuser bearing at least one of its registered trademarks. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-29.) And 13 the court concluded above that GS Holistic has plausibly alleged a likelihood of 14 confusion resulting from Defendants’ use of the trademarks. Accordingly, GS Holistic 15 has stated a false designation of origin claim. 16 Because GS Holistic has demonstrated that its claims have substantive merit and 17 that it has sufficiently alleged those claims in its complaint, the court concludes that the 18 second and third Eitel factors weigh in favor of default judgment. 19 3. 20 Under the fourth Eitel factor, “the court must consider the amount of money at Sum of Money at Stake 21 stake in relation to the seriousness of the [d]efendant’s conduct.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 22 2d at 1176. Here, GS Holistic seeks (1) $150,000 in statutory damages—$50,000 per ORDER - 8 1 Stündenglass trademark—for willful trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d) 2 and (2) costs in the amount of $1,312.28. (See Mot. at 2.) The court concludes that the 3 requested statutory damages and costs are not so unreasonable in relation to the conduct 4 alleged in the complaint as to weigh against entry of default judgment. 5 4. Possibility of a Dispute over Material Facts 6 “The fifth Eitel factor considers the possibility of dispute as to any material facts 7 in the case.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Where, as here, the defendant has 8 defaulted, the court must take all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, except 9 those related to damages. TeleVideo, 826 F.2d at 917-18; see also Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG 10 Holdings, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“Where a plaintiff has filed 11 a well-pleaded complaint, the possibility of dispute concerning material facts is 12 remote.”). Thus, the court concludes there is little risk of dispute over material facts and 13 the fifth Eitel factor weighs in favor of granting default judgment. 14 5. 15 The sixth Eitel factor considers the possibility that the defendant’s default resulted Excusable Neglect 16 from excusable neglect. PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Here, GS Holistic has 17 provided evidence that Defendants were properly served (see Service Affs.), and there is 18 no evidence in the record that Defendants’ failure to answer or respond is the result of 19 excusable neglect. Accordingly, the court concludes that the sixth Eitel factor weighs in 20 favor of default judgment. 21 // 22 // ORDER - 9 1 6. Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits 2 “Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 3 782 F.2d at 1472. Where, as here, a defendant fails to appear or defend itself in action, 4 however, the policy favoring decisions on the merits is not dispositive. PepsiCo, 238 F. 5 Supp. 2d at 1177. Therefore, the court concludes that the seventh Eitel factor does not 6 preclude entry of default judgment. 7 In sum, because the Eitel factors weigh in favor of default judgment, the court 8 concludes that entry of default judgment is warranted in favor of GS Holistic on its 9 claims against Defendants. 10 C. Requested Relief 11 The court now turns to the issue of remedies. “A default judgment must not differ 12 in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the [complaint].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 54(c); see Fong v. United States, 300 F.2d 400, 413 (9th Cir. 1962). Defaulting 14 defendants are not deemed to have admitted the facts alleged in the complaint concerning 15 the amount of damages. TeleVideo, 826 F.2d at 917. Rather, the plaintiff “must ‘prove 16 up’ the amount of damages that it is claiming.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld 17 Prod., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 501 (C.D. Cal. 2003); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. 18 LCR 55(b)(2). 1 By analogy, plaintiffs must also “prove up” their entitlement to other 19 20 21 22 1 This court’s Local Civil Rules require plaintiffs to support a motion for default judgment with: a declaration and other evidence establishing [the] plaintiff’s entitlement to a sum certain and to any nonmonetary relief sought. [The] [p]laintiff shall provide a concise explanation of how all amounts were calculated, and shall support this ORDER - 10 1 forms of relief, such as a permanent injunction. See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Tyrrell–Miller, 2 678 F. Supp. 2d 117, 120-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 3 GS Holistic requests statutory damages, litigation costs, injunctive relief, and 4 destruction of the infringing products. (See Mot. at 12-16.) The court considers each 5 remedy below. 6 1. 7 Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff may elect whether to recover its actual damages Statutory Damages 8 caused by the defendants’ use of a counterfeit mark or statutory damages. 15 U.S.C. 9 § 1117(c). GS Holistic has elected to seek statutory damages. (Mot. at 12-15; see Am. 10 11 Compl. at 12-13 (including statutory damages in its prayer for relief).) The court has discretion to award statutory damages between $1,000 and $200,000 12 “per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, 13 as the court considers just.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(1). If, however, the court finds that the 14 trademark violation was willful, it may award up to $2,000,000 for each infringement. 15 Id. § 1117(c)(2). “[S]tatutory damages may compensate the victim, penalize the 16 wrongdoer, deter future wrongdoing, or serve all those purposes.” Y.Y.G.M. SA v. 17 Redbubble, Inc., 75 F.4th 995, 1008 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. 18 Dragon Pac. Int’l, 40 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 1994)). When determining the 19 20 21 22 explanation with evidence establishing the entitlement to and amount of the principal claim, and, if applicable, any liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, or other amounts sought[.] Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 55(b)(2). ORDER - 11 1 appropriate amount of statutory damages to award on default judgment, courts consider 2 whether the amount bears a “plausible relationship to [the p]laintiff’s actual damages.” 3 Yelp Inc. v. Catron, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Adobe Sys., Inc. 4 v. Tilley, No. C 09-1085 PJH, 2010 WL 309249, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2010)). That 5 is, although a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is entitled to damages that will 6 compensate and serve as a deterrent, “it is not entitled to a windfall.” Id. 7 GS Holistic requests statutory damages of $50,000 for each of its registered 8 trademarks, for a total of $150,000. (Mot. at 12-15.) GS Holistic’s evidence of its actual 9 damages caused by Defendants’ trademark violations, however, is limited to allegations 10 that its investigator observed “an excess of Glass Infusers which displayed” the 11 Stündenglass Marks and purchased a single glass infuser with an unspecified 12 Stündenglass Mark “affixed to it” for $420.28. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 29.) GS Holistic 13 contends that its chief executive officer’s (“CEO”) declaration establishes that $150,000 14 is “only a fraction of the actual losses to its business” caused by counterfeiters. (Mot. at 15 13.) That declaration, however, provides no explanation of how GS Holistic’s CEO 16 determined that the company’s total U.S. sales would have quadrupled in 2022 if there 17 were no counterfeit products in the market and says nothing about the damages 18 specifically caused by the Defendants in this case. (See generally 2d Folkerts Decl. (Dkt. 19 # 29) ¶¶ 13-14.) The court is sympathetic to the difficulties GS Holistic faces in 20 estimating actual damages with any degree of certainty without the benefit of 21 Defendants’ cooperation in discovery. (See Mot. at 13.) Without more evidence, 22 however, the court cannot conclude that an award of $50,000 in statutory damages for ORDER - 12 1 each of GS Holistic’s three registered trademarks bears a “plausible relationship” to GS 2 Holistic’s actual damages in this case. Yelp Inc., 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1102. 3 Because GS Holistic alleges only that the glass infuser its investigator purchased 4 had “a Stündenglass Mark affixed to it” (Am. Compl. ¶ 29), the court concludes that GS 5 Holistic is entitled to statutory damages based on Defendants’ conduct with respect to 6 only one trademark. The court further concludes, in its discretion, that an award of 7 $5,000 for one trademark violation will serve the compensatory, penal, and deterrent 8 purposes of statutory damages without resulting in an undue windfall for GS Holistic. 9 This amount equates to more than ten times the price of the allegedly infringing glass 10 infuser purchased by GS Holistic’s investigator. (See id.) Accordingly, the court awards 11 GS Holistic statutory damages of $5,000. 2 12 2. 13 Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who establishes that a defendant has violated a Litigation Costs 14 trademark “shall be entitled, . . . subject to the principles of equity, to recover . . . the 15 costs of the action.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Here, GS Holistic seeks costs in the total 16 amount of $1,312.28, consisting of the filing fee ($402.00), its process server fees 17 ($425.00), and its investigator’s fees ($485.28). (Mot. at 13 (citing Harris Decl. (Dkt. 18 19 20 21 22 2 GS Holistic cites several cases in which courts in the Central District of California and the Southern District of Florida awarded it statutory damages of $150,000 or more on default judgment. (See Mot. at 15 (compiling cases).) The court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning set forth in these decisions and finds far more persuasive the reasoning set forth in GS Holistic, LLC v. MSA-Bossy Inc., No. 22-CV-07638-JSC, 2023 WL 3604322, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2023) (noting that GS Holistic’s request for $150,000 in statutory damages was “out of all proportion to its actual damages” and awarding statutory damages of $5,000). ORDER - 13 1 # 27) ¶ 6); see Am. Compl. at 12-13 (including costs of suit in the prayer for relief).) The 2 court awards GS Holistic its filing fee and process server fees because these are costs that 3 are routinely awarded in Lanham Act cases. GS Holistic has not, however, cited any 4 authority for the proposition that its investigator’s fees are recognized “costs of the 5 action” under the Lanham Act. (See generally Mot.) Therefore, the court awards GS 6 Holistic costs in the amount of $827.00. 7 3. 8 The Lanham Act empowers courts “to grant injunctions, according to the 9 principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent 10 11 12 13 14 Injunctive Relief the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. 15 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006) (interpreting similar 16 language in considering a motion for permanent injunctive relief under the Patent Act). 17 The Lanham Act provides, in the case of a motion for a permanent injunction, that a 18 “plaintiff seeking any such injunction shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of 19 irreparable harm upon a finding of a [trademark] violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). 20 GS Holistic asks the court to enter a permanent injunction enjoining Mukilteo 21 Smoke Shop, Mr. Ahmed, and “their agents, employees, officers, directors, owners, 22 ORDER - 14 1 representatives, successor companies, related companies, and all persons acting in 2 concern or participation with” them from: 3 4 5 (a) Import, export, making, manufacture, reproduction, assembly, use, acquisition, purchase, offer, sale, transfer, brokerage, consignment, distribution, storage, shipment, licensing, development, display, delivery, marketing advertising or promotion of the counterfeit Stündenglass product identified in the complaint and any other unauthorized Stündenglass product, counterfeit, copy or colorful imitation thereof[.] 6 (Mot. at 15-16.) 7 The court declines to enter the requested permanent injunction. First, GS Holistic 8 argues only that it is entitled to injunctive relief “[b]y the reasons explained in [its] 9 Complaint.” (Id.) It does not address the factors a court must consider before entering a 10 permanent injunction. (See id.); see eBay Inc., 547 U.S. at 391. Second, although GS 11 Holistic’s complaint describes the sale of one counterfeit Stündenglass glass infuser 12 displaying one unspecified Stündenglass Mark, it requests a wider injunction relating to 13 “the counterfeit Stündenglass product identified in the complaint and any other 14 unauthorized Stündenglass product.” (Compare Am. Compl. ¶ 29, with Mot. at 15-16.) 15 Finally, “every order granting an injunction” must “describe in reasonable detail—and 16 not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or 17 required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). GS Holistic’s proposed order violates this rule by 18 referring to “the counterfeit Stündenglass product identified in the complaint.” (See Mot. 19 at 15-16.) For these reasons, the court denies GS Holistic’s request to enter a permanent 20 injunction. 21 22 ORDER - 15 1 4. Destruction of Infringing Products 2 Finally, GS Holistic seeks an order directing Defendants, “at their cost, [to] deliver 3 to [GS Holistic] for destruction all products, accessories, labels, signs, prints, packages, 4 wrappers, receptables, advertisements, and other material in their possession, custody or 5 control bearing any of the Stündenglass Marks.” (Mot. at 16.) The Lanham Act 6 authorizes the court to issue an order directing the destruction of articles that infringe 7 upon a trademark. 15 U.S.C. § 1118. Here, however, GS Holistic has not presented any 8 argument or evidence supporting its entitlement to this relief, and—as with its request for 9 a permanent injunction—its request for destruction of any article “bearing any of the 10 Stündenglass Marks” is not supported by its investigator’s purchase of a single glass 11 infuser bearing an unspecified Stündenglass Mark. (See Mot. at 16; Am. Compl. ¶ 29.) 12 As a result, the court denies GS Holistic’s request for an order directing the destruction of 13 allegedly infringing products. 14 IV. 15 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part GS 16 Holistic’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. # 26). Specifically, the court GRANTS GS 17 Holistic’s request for entry of default judgment against Mukilteo Smoke Shop and Mr. 18 Ahmed; AWARDS GS Holistic statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 and litigation 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // ORDER - 16 1 costs in the amount of $827.00; and DENIES GS Holistic’s requests for entry of a 2 permanent injunction and for an order directing the destruction of infringing products. 3 Dated this 8th day of March, 2024. 4 5 A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 17
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
