govinfo:USCOURTS-kywd-3_25-cv-00028-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
LOUISVILLE DIVISION 
 
GS HOLISTIC, L.L.C. Plaintiff 
 
v. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-28-RGJ 
 
HEMP VAPING ADVENTURE & SMOKE 
SHOP INC., AND MAHMOOD YAFEE 
Defendants 
 
* * * * * 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff GS 
Holistic L.L.C. (“GS Holistic”) against Defendants Hamp Vaping Adventure & Smoke Shop Inc. 
(“Hemp Vaping Adventure”) and Mahmood Yafee (“Yafee”) (collectively “Defendants”). This 
matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons below, the Motion for Default Judgment [DE 13] 
is GRANTED. 
I. BACKGROUND 
 GS Holistic asserts in its complaint that Defendants willfully infringed its trademarks in 
violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, counterfeited its trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(d), 
and made a false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) . [DE 1 at 13-14]. GS 
Holisic owns the following of four registered trademarks: 
1. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,633,884 for the standard character mark 
“Stüdenglass” in association with goods further identified in registration in 
international class 011. 
 
2. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,174,291 for the standard character mark 
“Stüdenglass” in association with goods further identified in registration in 
internal class 034. 
 
3. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,174,292 for the design plus words mark “S” 
and its logo in association with goods further identified in registration in 
international class 034. PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
 
4. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,028,399 for the standard character mark 
“Gravity Perfected” in association with goods further identified in registration 
in international class 010. 
 
[DE 1 at 3-4]. GS Holistic refers to these trademarks as the “ Stündenglass Marks,” which it has 
used since 2020 to make and sell “Gravity Infusers” and accessories. [DE 1 at 4]. GS Holistic 
alleges the Stündenglass Marks are distinctive to the public and in trade and that its branded 
products are of superior quality. [Id.] GS Holistic sells its products under the Stündenglass Marks 
to approximately 3,000 stores in the United States, including in Kentucky. [DE1 at 5]. A Gravity 
Infuser is priced at $599.95. [Id.]. GS Holistic alleges that counterfeits of the Gravity Infuser are 
sold in the price range of $200-$600. [Id. at 6]. 
GS Holistic alleges that Hemp Vaping Adventure and Yafee sell counterfeit products using 
all four of the Stündenglass Marks. [DE 1 at 6]. Hemp Vaping Adventure is a sole proprietorship 
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with a principal place 
of business at 2140 Old Shepherdsville Road in Louisville, Kentucky. [DE 1 at 2]. Yafee is the 
owner and operator of Hemp Vaping Adventure and a resident of Prestonsburg, Kentucky. [ Id.] 
On August 24, 2024, GS Holistic’s investigator observed at least two counterfeit products in the 
Hemp Vaping Adventure store, one of which the investigator purchased for $222.50. [DE 1 at 7 -
8]. GS Holistic’s investigator took photographs of Defendants’ use of all four of the Stündenglass 
Marks. [DE 1 at 8]. 
GS Holistic’s complaint against Hemp Vaping Adventure and Yafee was filed on January 
14, 2025. [DE 1]. Summonses were issued by Clerk of Court on January 15, 2025. [DE 5]. GS 
Holistic filed two separate proofs of service, one for each Defendant , on February 24, 2025 and 
March 14, 2025, respectively. [DE 6, DE 7]. On December 1, 2025, GS Holistic moved for entry 
of default against Defendants, [DE 8], which the clerk thereafter entered on January 5, 2026, [DE PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
9]. On February 26, 2026, the Court issued an order for GS Holistic to show cause why this matter 
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [DE 10]. GS Holistic responded on March 9, 
2026, requesting 30 days to file a motion for default judgment, which the Court granted. [DE 11, 
DE 12]. On April 9, 2026, GS Holistic filed a Motion for Default Judgment. [DE 13]. Defendants 
have not responded. 
II. STANDARD 
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a district court may enter a judgment of 
default against a defendant who fails to plead or otherwise defend against an action. To obtain a 
judgment by default, the moving party must first request that the Clerk of the Court enter a default 
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). See Ramada Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Baroda Enterprises, LLC , 220 
F.R.D. 303, 305 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (internal citation omitted). 
Once the clerk has entered default, the Court must accept all well -pleaded allegations in 
the complaint as true. Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d 293, 299 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Harmon v. CSX 
Transp., 110 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). Based on the factual 
predicate in the complaint, the Court must then “examine the sufficiency of plaintiff’s allegations 
to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to” a default judgment. Fifth Third Bank v. Canfield, 
No. 3:14-CV-00300-CRS, 2014 WL 3853464, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 5, 2014) (citing PNC Bank, 
N.A. v. Starlight Props. & Holdings, LLC , No. 6:13 –CV–408–ORL, 2014 WL 2574040, at *5 
(M.D. Fla. June 9, 2014)). The allegations are sufficient “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 
544, 556 (2007)). 
“[T]he decision to grant a default judgment is within the Court’s discretion.” AF Holdings PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
LLC v. Bossard , 976 F. Supp. 2d 927, 929 (W.D. Mich. 2013) (citations omitted). Factors 
considered in determining whether to enter a default judgment include: “[1] the amount of money 
potentially involved; [2] whether material issues of fact or issues of substantial public importance 
are at issue; [3] whether the default is largely technical; [4] whether plaintiff has been substantially 
prejudiced by the delay involved; [5] and whether the grounds for default are clearly established 
or are in doubt.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Camacho , No. 3:16 -CV-00141-TBR, 2017 WL 
2389409, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 1, 2017). 
“A default judgment on well -pleaded allegations establishes only defendant’s liability; 
plaintiff must still establish the extent of damages.” Kelley v. Carr, 567 F. Supp. 831, 841 (W.D. 
Mich. 1983). As a result, when moving for a default judgment, the plaintiff must prove its 
entitlement to monetary damages requested. A court will not simply accept a plaintiff’s statement 
of damages, see Malibu Media, LLC v. Schelling, 31 F. Supp. 3d 910, 911 (E.D. Mich. 2014), but 
rather, “must conduct an inquiry to ascer tain the amount of damages with reasonable 
certainty.” Priority Insulation v. Triple Crown Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 1:05CV563, 2006 WL 1529330, 
at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 5, 2006) (citing Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc. , 66 F.3d 105, 111 (6th Cir. 
1995)). 
Rule 55(b) permits, but does not require, the court to “conduct hearings or make referrals” 
in order “to determine the amount of damages[,] establish the truth of any allegation by evidence[,] 
or investigate any other matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). The court may also rely on affidavits 
and other documentary evidence to determine the appropriate damages. See Hart v. Estes , No. 
3:17CV-317-CRS, 2018 WL 1914295, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2018) (“The court, in its 
discretion, need not hold a hearing on the motion, but may determine on the filings 
that default judgment on the claims is proper, and may fix damages where the plaintiff has PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
 
provided sufficient documentary proof to establish the judgment amount.”) (citation omitted). 
III. DISCUSSION 
 GS Holistic alleges claims against Defendants under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-
1127. [DE 1]. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant suit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
§ 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a). 
To establish a claim of trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, a plaintiff “must 
show that: ‘(1) it owns the registered trademark; (2) the defendant used the mark in commerce; 
and (3) the use was likely to cause confusion.’” Libertarian Nat’l Comm., Inc. v. Saliba, 116 F.4th 
530, 534 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting in part Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc ., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th 
Cir. 2009)). The elements of a claim for false designation of origin are similar as the Lanham Act 
imposes liability on 
[a]ny person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container 
for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any 
combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading 
description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, [that] ... is likely to 
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, 
or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, 
or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another 
person. 
 
*6 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1); see also Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 542 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing 
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763, 780 (1992)) (“Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 
§ 1051 et seq., we use the same test to decide whether there has been trademark infringement, 
unfair competition, or false designation of origin: the likelihood of confusion between the two 
marks.”). “To recover on a federal trademark counterfeiting claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) 
the defendant infringed a registe red trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114; and (2) the 
defendant intentionally used the mark knowing it was a counterfeit as the term counterfeit is 
defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1116.” Laukus v. Rio Brands, Inc., 391 F. App’x 416, 425 (6th Cir. 2010) PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
 
(citing 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b)). 15 U.S.C. § 1116 defines a “counterfeit mark” as one that is 
“counterfeit of a mark that is registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office for such goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed and that is in use, 
whether or not the person against whom relief is sought knew such mark was so registered.” 15 
U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(B)(i). 15 U.S.C. § 1127 further defines “counterfeit” as “a spurious mark 
which is identical with, or su bstantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark.” 
15 U.S.C. § 1127. 
The record supports that GS Holistic owns four registered trademarks , the Stündenglass 
Marks, and that at least one product sold in commerce at the control and direction of Yafee was a 
counterfeit product u sing GS Holistic’s trademarks. By failing to respond to this lawsuit and 
defaulting, Yafee has admitted that his use of GS Holistic’s trademarks was likely to cause 
confusion, including confusion regarding the origin of the goods offered. Gs Holistic, LLC v. Maa 
Khodiyar Inc., No. 3:25-CV-00029-CHB-CHL, 2026 WL 364068, at *6 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 21, 2026) 
report and recommendation adopted sub nom. GS Holistic, L.L.C. v. Maa Khodiyar, Inc., No. 3:25-
CV-029-CHB-CHL, 2026 WL 362709 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 2026); see also Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 
327 F.3d 1115, 1125 (10th Cir. 2003) (stating that upon default, the defendant admits the plaintiff’s 
allegations). By failing to respond to this lawsuit and defaulting, Patel has also admitted that he 
intentionally used GS Holistic’s marks knowing they were counterfeit. Id. Thus, the record and 
allegations of the Complaint are sufficient to support the merits of GS Holistic’s claims such that 
the Court may draw a reasonable inference that Defendants are liable and weigh in favor of entry 
of a default judgment. 
As to the amount of money potentially involved, GS Holistic seeks statutory damages for 
willful trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). [DE 13 at 67]. The Court will discuss PageID #:
<pageID>
7 
 
in more detail the appropriate damages to award below. Based upon the allegations and proof 
submitted by GS Holistic, there do not appear to be material issues of fact , although Defendants 
have not appeared to contest the issues. Defendants have failed to appear, but enforcement of valid 
trademark rights is of importance to the public. The Court cannot find GS Holistic has been 
substantially prejudiced by the delay involved as that primarily results from when GS Holistic 
chose to seek an entry of default and motion for default judgment. Overall, the grounds for default 
are sufficiently established and it is appropriate to award a default judgment. 
Having found default against Defendants appropriate, the Court must determine damages. 
Under the Lanham Act, a successful plaintiff “shall be entitled . . . subject to the principles of 
equity, to recover (1) defendant ’s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the 
costs of the action.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). However, under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), in a case involving 
a counterfeit mark, a plaintiff may elect to recover statutory damages of between $1,000.0 0 and 
$200,000.00 “per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or 
distributed, as the court considers just.” Id. § 1117(c)(1). That amount may be increased to 
$2,000,000.00 “if the court finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was willful.” Id. § 1117(c)(2). 
In its motion , GS Holistic moves for statutory damages instead of actual damages and 
requests that the Court award it $200,000.00 in statutory damages, “$50,000.00 per mark.” [DE 13 
at 86]. Courts within this district and the Sixth Circuit have found a range of $5,000 to $20,000 in 
statutory damages appropriate in similar circumstances granting default judgments to GS Holistic. 
Gs Holistic, 2026 WL 364068, at *7 (collecting cases awarding statutory damages to GS Holistic). 
In the present case, Hemp Vaping Adventure appears to be a small local store. On August 
24, 2024, GS Holistic’s investigator observed at least two counterfeit products in the Hemp Vaping 
Adventure store, one of which the investigator purchased for $222.50. [DE 1 at 7-8]. There are no PageID #:
<pageID>
8 
 
allegations that the store was selling counterfeit products on a large scale or that they were put on 
notice by GS Holistic about their infringement. GS Holistic provides photos of the counterfeit 
product and a comparison to its product. GS Holistic provides evidence that Defendants sold the 
counterfeit product for approximately 37% of the authorized retail price which does suggest that 
Defendants knew the product was counterfeit. On these facts, an award of $5,000 per mark for a 
total of $20,000 is appropriate. 
GS Holistic also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting infringement on its marks. [DE 
13 at 87]. A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove: (1) that it has suffered an 
irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to 
compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and 
defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved 
by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 
First, to establish irreparable harm under the trademark infringement framework, once a 
moving party has shown a likelihood of confusion, irreparable injury is presumed. Wynn 943 F.2d 
at 608. Irreparable harm is “inherent in the loss of control over the use of one ’s registered 
trademark.” National Bd. Young Men ’s Christian Associations v. Flint Young Men's Christian 
Ass’n of Flint, Mich ., 764 F.2d 199, 202 (6th Cir.1985) (citing Burberry’s (Wholesale) Ltd. V. 
After Six Ciro., 122 Misc.2d 561, 471 N.Y.S.2d 235 (1984)). Here, GS Holistic presented evidence 
that Defendants are using the Stündenglass Marks and likelihood of confusion , thus, irreparable 
harm is presumed. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. CarMax, Inc ., 165 F.3d 1047, 1055 (6th 
Cir.1999). 
Second, as to adequate remedy at law, “where there is a potential for future harm from 
continuing infringement, there is no adequate remedy at law.” Am. Auto. Ass’n v. Dickerson, 995 PageID #:
<pageID>
9 
 
F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (quoting Circuit City, 165 F.3d at 1056). GS Holistic’s 
investigator documented a counterfeit product sold at Hemp Vaping Adventure, and Defendants 
have not appeared in the action or otherwise responded , demonstrating potential for continued 
infringement. Gs Holistic, LLC, 2026 WL 364068, at * 8; see also Stokes v. MilkChocolateNYC 
LLC, 681 F. Supp. 3d 226, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (“Stokes has established a threat of continuing 
violations . . . because MilkNYC has not appeared in this lawsuit . . .”). Thus, GS Holistic 
demonstrates there is no adequate remedy at law. 
As to the balance of har dships, Defendants face no hardship in complying with the law. 
GS Holistic, on the other hand, loses sales and endures brand dilution and reputational harm if the 
trademark infringement continues. GS Holistic demonstrates the balance of hardships favor it. 
As to the fourth requirement as to whether injunctive relief serves the public interest , 
“preventing consumer confusion and deception in the marketplace and protecting the trademark 
holder's property interest in the mark.” Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Amouri’s Grand Foods, Inc., 453 
F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir. 2006). Thus, a permanent injunction serves the public interest. GS Holistic 
is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from infringing the Stündenglass 
Marks. 
Finally, GS Holistic requests its costs. Under t he Lanham Act and the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, GS Holistic is entitled to costs as the prevailing party. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 54(d). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) authorizes a prevailing party to recover 
costs other than attorneys’ fees. White & White, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp. , 786 F.2d 728, 
730 (6th Cir. 1986) (Rule 54(d) “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs, but allows 
denial of costs at the discretion of the trial court.”). Recoverable costs are limited to those specified 
by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 481 F.3d 355, 359 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing PageID #:
<pageID>
10
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987)) (courts have “discretion to 
decline requests for costs, not discretion to award costs that § 1920 fails to enumerate”). § 1920 
allows recovery of “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained 
for use in the case”; “ [f]ees and disbursements for printing and witnesses”; “[f]ees of the clerk,” 
such as filing fees; “[c]ompensation of court appointed experts”; and “costs of making copies of 
any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 
GS Holistic seeks a total of $758.70 consisting of the filing fee ($402.00), the process 
server fee ($134.20), and the investigation fees ($222.50) and submitted an affidavit of counsel in 
support. Congress has expressly authorized fees of the Clerk to be taxed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1920(1). However, the statute does not permit costs for process server fees or investigation fees. 
See Phoenix Versailles Indus. Invs. LLC v. Bourbon Pallet Dreams, L.L.C ., No. CV 5:23 -196-
DCR, 2024 WL 476861, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2024). Nor does GS Holistic provide any authority 
in support of allowing these costs. [DE 13 at 86]. GS Holistic is entitled to costs in the amount of 
$402 for its filing fee. 
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court ORDERS as 
follows: 
1. The Motion for Default Judgment [DE 13] is GRANTED.
2. The Court will issue separate default judgment. 
June 18, 2026 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight