GS Holistic LLC v. T. Trading LLC
2:23-cv-00327
| W.D. Wash. | Aug 12, 2024Background
- GS Holistic, LLC, a manufacturer and trademark owner of Stündenglass glass infusers, sued T. Trading LLC (SeaTac Smoke Shop) and its owner Mohammad Sindhu for selling counterfeit products bearing the Stündenglass marks.
- GS Holistic holds several registered U.S. trademarks for the Stündenglass brand covering glass infusers and related goods.
- An investigator for GS Holistic purchased a suspected counterfeit product from SeaTac Smoke Shop, prompting claims for trademark counterfeiting, infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
- Defendants were served but did not appear; the clerk entered default, and GS Holistic moved for default judgment seeking statutory damages, costs, a permanent injunction, and destruction of infringing goods.
- The court assessed the default judgment request based on the seven Eitel factors and examined the sufficiency of GS Holistic’s evidence and requested remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry of Default Judgment | Eitel factors justify default judgment against absent Defendants | No appearance or argument | Granted; default judgment appropriate |
| Statutory Damages for Counterfeiting | Entitled to $150,000 ($50k/trademark) due to willful counterfeiting | No appearance or argument | Only $5,000 awarded (1 viol., limited proof) |
| Injunctive Relief (Permanent Injunction) | Entitled based on the complaint and Lanham Act | No appearance or argument | Denied; insufficient evidence and specificity |
| Destruction of Infringing Products | Entitled under Lanham Act; all infringing goods should be destroyed | No appearance or argument | Denied; insufficient basis in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (well-pleaded factual allegations in complaint are accepted as true upon default)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (entry of default judgment within court's discretion)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (establishes seven-factor test for default judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of trademark infringement)
- Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (trademark infringement standard)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014) (proof of trademark ownership)
- Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2007) (false designation of origin standard)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prod., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (plaintiff must prove up damages in default judgment)