GS Holistic LLC v. RAB 786 LLC
2:23-cv-00321
W.D. Wash.Nov 7, 2023Background
- GS Holistic (Delaware LLC) owns federally registered “Stündenglass” trademarks and markets premium glass infusers.
- Defendants are RAB 786 LLC d/b/a Xhale Gallery (a Washington retailer) and its owners Nadeem Anjum and Muhammad Jamil Anjum.
- On Dec. 8, 2022 GS Holistic’s investigator purchased a glass infuser at Xhale Gallery bearing a Stündenglass mark and concluded it was counterfeit.
- GS Holistic sued under the Lanham Act for trademark counterfeiting and infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) and false designation of origin/unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), seeking damages, costs, a permanent injunction, and destruction of infringing goods.
- Defendants were served but did not appear; the Clerk entered default. GS Holistic moved for default judgment.
- The court entered default judgment in part: found liability, awarded $5,000 in statutory damages (for one trademark) and $687 in costs, and denied the requested permanent injunction and destruction order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for trademark counterfeiting/infringement | GS Holistic: owns registered Stündenglass marks and Defendants sold products bearing counterfeit reproductions, so infringement and counterfeiting occurred | Defendants: no response (default) | Court: well‑pleaded allegations admitted; ownership and likelihood of confusion (presumed for counterfeits) established; liability found |
| False designation of origin (§ 1125(a)) | GS Holistic: Defendants used marks in commerce on counterfeit goods causing confusion | Defendants: no response (default) | Court: elements plausibly alleged; claim stands |
| Statutory damages (§ 1117(c)) | GS Holistic: seeks $150,000 ($50,000 per registered mark) as statutory damages for willful counterfeiting | Defendants: no response (default) | Court: Plaintiff failed to prove actual damages or multiple‑mark violations; awarded $5,000 for one trademark (reasonable, not a windfall) |
| Costs and fees | GS Holistic: seeks $1,193 (filing fee, process service, investigator fees) | Defendants: no response (default) | Court: awarded routine costs (filing fee + process server) but denied investigator fees; total $687 awarded |
| Permanent injunction and destruction of goods | GS Holistic: seeks broad permanent injunction and order to deliver infringing items for destruction | Defendants: no response (default) | Court: denied both—requests overbroad, not tied to the single proved item, and proposed injunction violated Rule 65(d) by vague/referral language |
Key Cases Cited
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (well‑pleaded factual allegations deemed admitted after default)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors governing default judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- KP Permanent Make‑Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2005) (likelihood‑of‑confusion factors)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014) (registered mark establishes ownership/protectable interest)
- Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements for false designation of origin)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four‑factor test for permanent injunction)
- Y.Y.G.M. SA v. Redbubble, Inc., 75 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2023) (purposes and considerations for statutory damages under Lanham Act)