Breeze Smoke, LLC v. Speed Wholesale, Inc
4:25-cv-10184
| E.D. Mich. | Aug 8, 2025Background
- Breeze Smoke LLC, a Michigan-based company, owns several registered federal and state trademarks for its "BREEZE" vaping products, with use dating back to 2014.
- Breeze Smoke discovered in 2023-2024 that Speed Wholesale, Inc. (Illinois) and MKE Vape Wholesale LLC (Wisconsin) were selling "FREEZE BAR" vaping products allegedly copying Breeze Smoke's marks and trade dress, in similar venues and to the same customer base.
- Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to both defendants, who neither responded nor ceased their marketing and sale of the alleged infringing products.
- Breeze Smoke filed suit on January 17, 2025, asserting federal claims under the Lanham Act (trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin) and Michigan common law claims (unfair competition, unjust enrichment).
- After proper service, defendants failed to appear or respond to the complaint. The clerk entered default against both defendants.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment, seeking a permanent injunction, trebled damages, and attorney's fees; the court held a damages hearing and required documentation, which plaintiff provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act § 1114) | Owns valid marks, defendants' use is unauthorized & confuses | No response (defaulted) | For plaintiff: Infringement found |
| Trade Dress Infringement (Lanham Act § 1125(a)) | Trade dress is nonfunctional, distinctive, and infringed | No response (defaulted) | For plaintiff: Infringement found |
| Unfair Competition/False Designation (Lanham Act) | Likelihood of confusion from defendants' use | No response (defaulted) | For plaintiff: Liability found |
| Permanent Injunction | Infringement irreparably harms plaintiff, no remedy at law | No response (defaulted) | Injunction granted |
| Damages & Attorney Fees | $150,000 lost profits, trebled per Lanham Act; reasonable fees | No response (defaulted) | $450,000 damages, $93,924 fees to plaintiff |
| Michigan Unfair Competition & Unjust Enrichment | Same conduct violates state law & unjustly enriches defendants | No response (defaulted) | For plaintiff: Liability found |
Key Cases Cited
- Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1997) (lists test for likelihood of confusion in trademark claims).
- Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) (defines functionality in trade dress context).
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (addresses inherent distinctiveness of trade dress and identical test for likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act).
- Wynn Oil Co. v. Am. Way Serv. Corp., 943 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1991) (standards for damages and confusion in Lanham Act cases).
- La Quinta Corp. v. Heartland Properties LLC, 603 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2010) (discretionary enhancement of damages under Lanham Act principles of equity).