GS Holistic, LLC v. AA 110
2:22-cv-02034-DAD-CKD
| E.D. Cal. | Dec 7, 2023Background
- GS Holistic, LLC owns three federally registered "Stündenglass" trademarks used on glass infusers and accessories since 2020.
- An investigator purchased a single glass infuser bearing a Stündenglass mark from Dixon Smoke Shop; plaintiff alleges the item was counterfeit and defendants were not authorized to sell it.
- Defendants AA110 d/b/a Dixon Smoke Shop and Sayed Mehdizadeh were served but did not appear; clerk entered default on March 7, 2023.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking $150,000 in statutory damages ($50,000 per mark), $866.20 in costs, a permanent injunction, and destruction of infringing items.
- The magistrate judge applied Eitel factors, found the Lanham Act claims sufficiently pleaded, recommended default judgment in part, and declined broad injunctive and destruction relief as unsupported.
- Remedies recommended: statutory damages of $5,000 (for one infringing mark) and costs of $532; injunction and destruction order denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is appropriate and claims are sufficient | Service was proper; plaintiff owns registered marks and alleges sale of a counterfeit product causing likelihood of confusion | No response/appearance | Eitel factors weigh for default; complaint states viable Lanham Act claims; default judgment recommended. |
| Proper amount of statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) | Requests $150,000 ($50,000 per mark) as just deterrent | No response/appearance | Requested amount unsupported by evidence; court awarded $5,000 in statutory damages. |
| Number/scope of infringements for damages calculation | Seeks damages for three registered marks | No response/appearance | Plaintiff failed to prove multiple distinct infringements; damages limited to one infringing mark. |
| Injunctive relief, destruction order, and taxable costs | Seeks permanent injunction, destruction under § 1118, and $866.20 costs (filing, service, investigation) | No response/appearance | Permanent injunction and destruction denied as overbroad/unsupported; costs awarded $532 (filing + process service); investigation fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors for default-judgment discretion)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (well-pleaded allegations in complaint taken as true after default)
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (likelihood-of-confusion factors)
- Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (application/weighting of Sleekcraft factors)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunction)
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012) (statutory limits on taxable costs)