GS Holistic, LLC v. Alex Inc. Incorporation et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
GS HOLISTIC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
ALEX INC. INCORPORATION,
d/b/a EAST MAIN EXP. SMOKE
SHOP, etal..
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-323
Judge Walter H. Rice
Mag. Judge Michael R. Merz
ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENTOF
PLAINTIFF GS HOLISTIC, LLC (DOC. #38); JUDGMENT SHALL ULTIMATELY
ENTER IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS ALEX INC.
INCORPORATION, D/B/A EAST MAIN EXPRESS SMOKE SHOP, AND CHRISTINE
ANTOUN ON THE ISSUE OF THE ACTIVITY, VALIDITY, AND OWNERSHIP OF
TRADEMARK NOS. 6, 174, 291; 6, 174, 292; 6, 633, 884; AND 7, 028, 399
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
of Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC. (Doc. #38) On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed its
Complaint against Defendants Alex Inc. Incorporation [s/c), d/b/a East Main
Express Smoke Shop ("East Main"), and Christine Antoun. (Doc. #1). Defendants
filed an Answer on July 8, 2025. (Doc. #36, citing Amended Complaint, Doc. #22).
On October 15, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to move for partial summary
judgment against Defendants as to the validity and ownership of United States
Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration Nos. 6, 174, 291; 6, 174, 292;
Case: 3:23-cv-00323-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6, 663, 884; and 7, 028, 399 ("Stundenglass Marks"); if Plaintiff failed to do so, then
the case would proceed to trial. (Order, Doc. #37, PAGEID 225-26). On October
29, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Motion. (Doc. #38). Defendants filed a memorandum
contra (Doc. #39), and Plaintiff filed a reply memorandum. (Doc. #42). The matter
is ripe for decision.
I. Legal Standards
Summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. " FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Summary judgment must be entered
"against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence
of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial. " Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 322 (1986). The
moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the
basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323; see also
Borettiv. Wiscomb, 930 F. 2d 1150, 1156 (6th Cir. 1991).
Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the nonmoving party must
present evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact making it necessary
to resolve the difference at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 250
(1986). Once the burden has so shifted, the party opposing summary judgment
cannot rest on its pleadings or merely reassert its previous allegations. It is not
sufficient to "simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
Case: 3:23-cv-00323-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

material facts. " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574,
586 (1986). Rule 56 "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings,"
and present some type of evidentiary material in support of its position. Celotex,
477 U. S. at 324. "The plaintiff must present more than a scintilla of evidence in
support of his position; the evidence must be such that a jury could reasonably
find for the plaintiff. " Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Babin, 18 F. 3d 337,
341 (6th Cir. 1994).
"Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is
'genuine/ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party. " Anderson, 477 U. S. at 248. In determining
whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, a court must assume as true the
evidence of the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
that party. Id. at 255. If the parties present conflicting evidence, a court may not
decide which evidence to believe. Credibility determinations must be left to the
fact-finder. 10A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL
PRACTICEAND PROCEDURECIVIL§ 2726 (3d ed. 1998).
In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, a court
need only consider the materials cited by the parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3). "A
district court is not... obligated to wade through and search the entire record for
some specific facts that might support the nonmoving party's claim. " InterRoyal
Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F. 2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1989). If it so chooses, however,
Case: 3:23-cv-00323-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

the court may also consider other properly presented materials in the record.
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).
II. Analysis
In its Motion, Plaintiff presents substantial, valid, and undisputed evidence
that the Stundenglass Marks Nos. 6, 174, 291; 6, 174, 292; 6, 633, 884; and 7, 028, 399;
are valid, active, and assigned to Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff has attached true
and accurate copies of the Stundenglass Marks registration with the USPTO. (C.
Folkerts Decl. 1, Doc. #38-1, PAGEID 234, IT 7, citing Marks, Doc. #38-2, PAGEID
237-44).
Receipt of a registered trademark automatically invokes a statutory
presumption that the trademark is valid. The statutory presumption
shifts the burden of proof to the party challenging the validity of the
mark. Furthermore, the District Court may not overrule the decision
ofregisterabilityofthe Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) unless the
party challenging the mark argues persuasively that the mark was
ineligible for protection.
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.. 871 F. 2d 590, 593
(6th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted).
In their memorandum contra, Defendants argue that East Main ceased to
exist when its assets were sold on or about August 14, 2023. Defendant Antoun
claims that, since that date, she has been unable "to do anything related to the
rights which the Plaintiff now seeks to enforce, and to protect, by means of the
[M]otion[. ]" (Doc. #39, PAGEID 245). While this argument may be ultimately
dispositive on the issue of liability and damages, it is irrelevant to the subject of
the Motion. Defendants advance no other argument or facts suggesting any
Case: 3:23-cv-00323-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

factual dispute, much less a material one, that the Stundenglass Marks were
active and owned by Plaintiff at all relevant times in the litigation, specifically "at
the time of the investigation at issue in this case which took place [on] July 25,
2023. " (Doc. #38-1, PAGEID 235, I114).
As there is no dispute, much less a material one, over ownership or validity
of the Stundenglass Marks, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
#38) is SUSTAINED. Judgment shall ultimately enter in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendants that Stundenglass Marks Nos. 6, 174, 291; 6, 174, 292; 6, 633, 884,
and 7, 028, 399 have been continuously valid, active, and assigned to Plaintiff.
Upon resolution of Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
#40), the captioned case shall be set for trial on the issues of liability and
damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 9, 2025
^aAAV ^\ ^^t^
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 3:23-cv-00323-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>