GS Holistic, LLC v. Yosif Inc

Background

GS Holistic, LLC renewed its request for a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) in this trademark dispute. The court had previously denied entry of default judgment and had expressed concern about GS Holistic's similar or repeated pleading approach.

In the earlier order, the court concluded that GS Holistic had not alleged which “Stündenglass Mark” was infringed in connection with the alleged sale of a single counterfeit product. The court also found that GS Holistic had not provided facts making the trademark claim plausible or showing that the alleged infringement was willful. GS Holistic did not amend its complaint to address those deficiencies.

Damages Request

GS Holistic sought $150,000 in statutory damages based on the alleged sale of one counterfeit product. The court found that the requested amount was disproportionate to the complaint's allegation of only one sale of a single product. GS Holistic did not cite authority showing that evidence of monetary losses from widespread counterfeiting unrelated to Yosif Inc. was relevant to the damages analysis in this action.

Ruling

The court applied the factors from Eitel v. McCool for deciding whether to enter a default judgment. It concluded that the second and third factors weighed against entry because of the pleading deficiencies, and that the fourth factor—the amount of money at stake—also weighed against entry because of the disproportionate damages request. The court noted that default judgments are generally disfavored and that little had changed since its prior order.

Judge Donato denied GS Holistic's renewed motion for default judgment.