GS Holistic, LLC v. GC Smoke Shop LLC et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
GS HOLISTIC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
HUSAM MOUSA, d/b/a VAPOR
STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case Nos. 2:23-cv-3761
2:23-cv-3762
Judge Walter H. Rice
Mag. Judge Michael R. Merz
ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFF GS
HOLISTIC, LLC (DOC. #39); JUDGMENT SHALL ULTIMATELY ENTER IN FAVOR OF
PLAINITFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT HUSAM MOUSA, d/b/a VAPOR STATE;
DEFENDANTS GC SMOKE SHOP, LLC, d/b/a GC SMOKE SHOP, DIALA TOBACCO
SHOP LLC, d/b/a SMOKE HOUSE, AND NABIL SHALASH SHALL, WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF ENTRY, EITHER VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THEIR CROSS-
CLAIM (DOC. #33-1) OR MOVE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST MOUSA
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Default Judgment of Plaintiff
GS Holistic, LLC, against the sole remaining Defendant, Husam Mousa, d/b/a
Vapor State (hereinafter "Mousa"). 	(Doc. #39). 1 For the reasons set forth below,
the Motion is SUSTAINED.
I. 	Procedural History and Analysis
On January 14, 2025, the above-captioned cases were consolidated and
Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. 	(Decision and Order,
1 All docket references are to lead case 2:23-cv-3761 unless otherwise expressly specified.
Case: 2:23-cv-03761-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Doc. #24). 	On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Complaint, adding Mousa as a Defendant. 	(Doc. #27). 	Mousa was served on or
about February 4, 2025 (Returns of Service, Doc. #31, PAGEID 261 ). 	However,
Mousa never answered or otherwise participated in the case, despite the Court
ordering him to do so on April 16, 2025 (Doc. #32), and despite Defendants GC
Smoke Shop, LLC, d/b/a GC Smoke Shop, Diala Tobacco Shop LLC, d/b/a Smoke
House, and Nabil Shalash (collectively "Shalash Defendants") filing a Cross-Claim
against him that same day. 	(Doc. #33-1 ). 	On September 9, 2025, the Clerk of
Courts filed an Entry of Default against Mousa (Doc. #36), and on October 8, 2025,
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion against Mousa. 	(Doc. #39). 	On December 30,
2025, Plaintiff and the Shalash Defendants reached a settlement, which "does not
affect any other parties in this action. 	Motion for Default Judgment against
Husam Mous[a] ... remains outstanding for adjudication." 	(Notice of Settlement,
Doc. #44, PAGEID 328). 	The settlement also did not purport to affect the Shalash
Defendants' Cross-Claim against Mousa.
In its Motion, Plaintiff presents substantial, valid, and undisputed evidence
that:
• 	According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
("USPTO"), the Stundenglass Trademarks Reg. Nos. 6,174,291,
6,174,292, 6,633,884 ("Marks") are valid, active, and assigned to
Plaintiff2;
2 While Plaintiff did not attach the Trademark Certificates for the Stundenglass Marks to the instant
Motion for Default Judgment, it has done so in numerous other cases before this Court. (See, e.g.,
Motion for Default Judgment, No. 2:23-cv-3571, Doc. #19, PAGE ID 156-61 ). Moreover, the
Certificates are public records of which the Court may take judicial notice See, e.g., EVO Brands,
2
Case: 2:23-cv-03761-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

• 	By selling counterfeit goods bearing the Stundenglass Marks likely to
cause consumers to mistake the counterfeit tobacco infusers
("Products") for legitimate Stundenglass products, Mousa is liable for
both trademark infringement and false destination of origin, in
violation of the Lanham Act of 1946 (Doc. #39, PAGEID 291-97, citing
15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a));
• 	Mousa's Lanham Act violations were willful, as the statute has been
interpreted. (Id. at PAGEID 299-300, quoting Coach, Inc. v. Cellular
Planet, No. 2:09-cv-241, 2010 WL 2572113, *2 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 22,
2010) (Graham, J.); citing 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c); Wildlife Exp. Corp. v.
Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502,511 (7th Cir.1994); Lorillard
Tobacco Co. v. Yazan's Serv. Plaza, Inc., No. 05-70804, 2007 WL
1834714, *4 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 25, 2007)); and
• 	An award of statutory damages in the amount of $150,000-$50,000
per infringed trademark-is commensurate with the harm Plaintiff
suffered from the infringement and sufficient to act as deterrent
toward future potential infringers. 	(Id at PAGEID 301-02, citing
Microsoft Corp. v. McGee, 490 F. Supp. 2d 874, 882 (S.D. Ohio June
22, 2010) (Barrett, J.) (noting that "courts have found statutory
damages are appropriate in default judgment cases because the
information needed to prove actual damages is within the infringers'
control and is not disclosed."); JUUL Labs, Inc. v. FL/ High, LLC, 2021
WL 3633512, *2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2021 ); C. Folkerts Damages Deel.
1, Doc. #39-1, PAGEID 307-11; C. Folkers Damages Deel. 2, Doc. #39-2,
PAGEID 312-16).
Mousa has known about Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and the nature
of the allegations against him for more than one year, and has had numerous
opportunities to contest Plaintiff's recitation of the facts regarding trademark
validity and Defendants' liability for selling counterfeit goods. 	(Doc. #27, PAGEID
287-90, citing Doc. #27, PAGEID 208, 209-10, 21,214, 1l1l 9-10, 13-20, 29, 42-43).
Mousa has not done so, even when faced with significant evidence of liability.
LLC v. Al Kha/ifa Grp. LLC, 657 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1321 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (USPTO records "are
appropriate subjects for judicial notice because they constitute matters of public record.").
3
Case: 2:23-cv-03761-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Thus, all well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint are deemed admitted against
it, except with respect to damages. 	Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110
(6th Cir. 1995).
Additionally, Defendants have not attempted to present any evidence in
opposition to Plaintiff's Chief Executive Officer regarding damages, or in
opposition to Plaintiff's well-reasoned arguments as to the appropriateness of an
award of statutory damages of $150,000, $50,000 per infringed trademark, plus
costs of litigation, injunctive relief, and destruction of the counterfeit products.
(Doc. #39, PAGEID 301-03 (collecting cases); see also Doc. #39-1, PAGEID 307-01;
Doc. #39-2, PAGEID 313-15; Attorney Damages Deel., Doc. #39-3, PAGEID 102-03).
"Although statutory damages need not match actual damages, courts
generally hold that statutory damages should bear some relation to actual
damages suffered." 	Stark Carpet Corp. v. Stark Carpet & Flooring Installation
Corp., 954 F. Supp. 2d 145,154 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
578 U.S. 330 (2016) (Plaintiff showing bare procedural violation of law with
statutory damages provision does not have Article Ill standing absent concrete
injury-in-fact resulting from said violation.). 	However, Mousa may not escape
judgment simply by not participating in the case and making actual losses
impossible to ascertain. 	Here, Plaintiff has presented undisputed evidence of the
harm caused by Mousa infringing Plaintiff's trademark. 	(Doc. #39-1, PAGEID 307-
11; Doc. #39-2, PAGEID 312-15). 	Finally, district courts have consistently awarded
4
Case: 2:23-cv-03761-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

statutory damages of approximately $50,000 per mark or more in trademark
infringement cases. 	(Doc. #39, PAGEID 301-03 (collecting cases)).
In sum, Plaintiff has demonstrated cognizable, redressable harm, and
presented undisputed evidence that damages of $150,000 are connected to the
harm Plaintiff suffered and act as a sufficient deterrent against future
infringement. Thus, judgment will enter in favor of Plaintiff and against Mousa in
that amount. 3
Plaintiff has also shown that equitable relief against Mousa is necessary to
prevent present and future harm to Plaintiff. 	(Doc. #39, PAGEID 303-04, citing 15
U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1118). Accordingly, Mousa is enjoined from purchasing, selling,
or using for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, the Products or any other
counterfeit Stundenglass product that would infringe upon the trademarks at
issue. 	Additionally, Mousa is to destroy all Products and any other counterfeit
Stundenglass items in their possession or control within thirty (30) days of entry,
and certify to the Court within fourteen days of their destruction that they have
been destroyed. 	Failure to do so may result in sanctions and additional damages
being assessed against Mousa .
3 While Plaintiff also asks that the Court award $1634.74 in Court-related costs (Doc. #39-3, PAGEID
317,115), costs are taxed against Defendants as a matter of course fourteen days after Plaintiff files
a notice of costs with the Clerk of Court's Office. FED.R.CIv.P. 54(d)(1 ). Thus, the Court need not
reach this portion of Plaintiff's Motion at this time.
5
Case: 2:23-cv-03761-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

II. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc.
#39) is SUSTAINED as to Mousa. Judgment in the amount of $150,000, with
additional equitable relief described above, shall ultimately enter in favor of
Plaintiff and against Mousa. The Shalash Defendants shall, within FOURTEEN (14)
days of entry, either voluntarily dismiss their Cross-Claim against Mousa (Doc.
#33-1) or move for default judgment against him. 	Failure to do so WILL RESULT
in the Court dismissing the Cross-Claim for want of prosecution and terminating
the captioned matters.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 17, 2026 	WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
Case: 2:23-cv-03761-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/18/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>