GS Holistic, LLC v. Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:25-cv-04770
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In GS Holistic v. Amazing Store, Judge Cave made the amended complaint operative and set deadlines for service and responses.
GS Holistic, LLC, Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc., Mohammad Salim Sheikh, and Saleha Dadabhai Sheikh. The order makes GS’s amended complaint operative and sets service and response deadlines for the defendants.
What happened
GS Holistic, LLC v. Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc. involves claims that the defendants sold reproductions or imitations of GS’s trademarks without permission. GS sued Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc., Mohammad Salim Sheikh, and later added Saleha Dadabhai Sheikh as a defendant.
GS filed the amended complaint after the deadline for changing the complaint without court permission. GS did not request permission or provide written consent from the existing defendants, but the existing defendants had not responded or objected. The court found no shown delay, bad faith, or prejudice, and found that adding Saleha was not plainly futile.
Judge Cave designated the amended complaint as the operative complaint. She ordered GS to serve the existing defendants with it and to serve Saleha with a summons and the amended complaint by September 22, 2025. Each defendant must respond within 21 days after service.
The detailed version
- GS Holistic, LLC v. Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-04770
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
GS Holistic, LLC filed the original complaint against Amazing Store & Smoke Shop Inc. doing business as Amazing Store & Smoke Shop and Mohammad Salim Sheikh. GS alleged trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, based on the alleged sale of reproductions, counterfeits, copies, or similar imitations of GS’s trademarks without GS’s consent.
GS later filed an amended complaint adding Saleha Dadabhai Sheikh in the caption. The complaint alleged that Saleha owned, controlled, and directed the activities of the Store. The court noted that GS had already referred to Saleha in the original complaint but had not listed her in its caption.
Court’s reasoning
GS filed the amended complaint after the 21-day period for amending a pleading without permission. GS did not ask for leave to amend and did not file written consent from the existing defendants or Saleha. Under the applicable rule, however, courts generally allow amendments when justice requires, unless there is a substantial reason such as undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. Futility means that the proposed amendment would plainly fail as a legal matter.
The existing defendants had not responded to the original complaint and had not opposed the amended complaint. The court therefore found no showing that GS had delayed improperly, acted in bad faith, or prejudiced the existing defendants. The court also found that adding Saleha was not plainly futile and concluded that GS met the liberal standard for amendment.
Order
The court ordered three things:
- It designated the amended complaint at ECF No. 15 as the operative complaint.
- By September 22, 2025, GS had to serve the existing defendants with the amended complaint and serve Saleha with both a summons and the amended complaint, then file proof of service.
- The existing defendants and Saleha had to respond within 21 days after service.
The order addressed amendment and service procedures. It did not decide whether GS would prevail on its trademark or unfair-competition claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.