SI03, Inc. v. Musclegen Research, Inc., 1:16-cv-00274

SI03, Inc., maker of SYNTRAX protein powder, sued MuscleGen Research, Inc. alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act, Missouri unfair competition, and unjust enrichment for claiming its GenePro powder contains 30g of protein per tablespoon when a tablespoon actually contains ≤10g.
MuscleGen, a North Carolina corporation, was served but failed to timely answer; the Clerk entered default and multiple certified-mail attempts to notify MuscleGen of the suit and default-judgment motions were made.
Because MuscleGen did not respond, the court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as admitted but still evaluated whether they state a legitimate claim and whether relief is appropriate.
The court found the Lanham Act elements satisfied based on the admitted allegations: false commercial statements (30g per tablespoon; “medical grade”), likely to deceive, material, and causing or likely to cause injury to SI03.
The court granted default judgment and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting MuscleGen and affiliates from overstating protein amounts and from using “medical grade” labeling unless FDA-approved; it denied SI03’s request for $145,000 in monetary damages for lack of calculable evidence but allowed submission of costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MuscleGen made false or misleading commercial statements violative of §43(a) of the Lanham Act	MuscleGen labels GenePro as 30g protein per tbsp and “medical grade,” which is factually false and misleading	No response; defaulted and conceded allegations	Court held allegations admitted and sufficient to establish Lanham Act and Missouri unfair competition claims
Whether SI03 is entitled to a permanent injunction	SI03 argued ongoing false advertising causes irreparable harm, consumer confusion, and loss of goodwill	No response/no protectable interest in continuing false ads	Court granted permanent injunction (enjoining overstated protein claims and "medical grade" claims without FDA approval)
Whether monetary damages are warranted and proved ($145,000 requested)	SI03 sought $145,000 in actual damages and costs for lost sales and unjust enrichment	No response; no evidentiary proof submitted	Court denied monetary damages for lack of calculable evidence of defendant profits or plaintiff losses; allowed Bill of Costs submission
Whether service and notice were adequate for entry of default judgment	SI03 obtained service and multiple certified-mail notices; asked court to proceed with default judgment	MuscleGen did not contest adequacy of service (no response)	Court found adequate attempts at notice and entered default judgment and injunction

Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1996) (default judgment appropriate where defendant willfully fails to defend)
United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1993) (willful violation of court rules and contumacious conduct justify default)
Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2010) (facts in the complaint are taken as true on default but conclusions of law are not)
Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010) (court must assess whether unchallenged facts state a legitimate cause of action)
Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 650 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2011) (false advertising can be literal or implied and deceive a significant portion of the audience)
United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1998) (elements required to prove false advertising under §43(a))
Community of Christ Copyright Corp. v. Devon Park Restoration Branch of Jesus Christ's Church, 634 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements for permanent injunction: success on merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest)