Godinger Silver Art v. Shenzen Tangson: $216K Default Judgment in Cigar Glass Design Patent
Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd. brought a design patent infringement action in the Eastern District of New York against Shenzen Tangson Houseware Co., Ltd. over USD846947S — a distinctive drinking glass with an integrated cigar holder. After the defendant failed to appear, the court entered default judgment awarding Godinger $216,179.65 in total profits and pre-judgment interest across a case spanning 1,601 days.
Design patent default: Godinger wins $216K over copycat cigar glass
On May 12, 2021, Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging design patent infringement by Shenzen Tangson Houseware Co., Ltd., a Chinese houseware manufacturer. The asserted patent, USD846947S (application no. US29/673476), protects the ornamental design of a drinking glass with an integrated cigar holder — commercialised as the ‘Lighten-Life Cigar Glass,’ available in both rounded and semi-circular forms. The accused products directly replicated the distinctive aesthetic covered by Godinger’s registered design.
Shenzen Tangson failed to appear or file any responsive pleading, leading Godinger to pursue a default judgment. Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon issued a Report and Recommendation on August 19, 2025, recommending that Godinger’s motion be granted and that the court award $185,796.00 in total profits — the remedy available under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall adopted the Report and Recommendation on September 26, 2025, and the Clerk of Court calculated pre-judgment interest of $30,383.65 at the three-month T-Bill rate compounded annually from November 16, 2021, bringing the total award to $216,179.65.
The case ran 1,601 days — unusually long for a default matter — suggesting procedural complexity in serving a foreign defendant and computing damages. The total profits figure implies Godinger successfully quantified Shenzen Tangson’s revenues attributable to the infringing design, consistent with the defendant-disgorging remedy unique to design patent law. What remains unknown from the public record is whether Godinger has initiated enforcement proceedings in China or against U.S. importers to collect on the judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 1601 days
1,601 days — significantly above the median for uncontested E.D.N.Y. default proceedings
Default judgment entered: what the $216K award means for both parties
Default judgment: liability found without contested merits
When a defendant fails to answer or otherwise appear, the court may enter a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Liability is deemed admitted by the defendant’s silence, but the plaintiff must still prove damages. Here, Magistrate Judge Scanlon’s Report and Recommendation evaluated Godinger’s profits evidence before District Judge Hall adopted it — a standard two-step process that explains the lengthy timeline despite the absence of adversarial litigation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultGodinger secures full disgorgement of defendant’s profits
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may recover the infringer’s total profits from articles bearing the protected design — a more expansive remedy than lost profits or reasonable royalty. Godinger recovered $185,796.00 in total profits plus $30,383.65 in pre-judgment interest. The pre-judgment interest rate — the three-month T-Bill rate compounded annually from November 16, 2021 — reflects a conservative judicial benchmark, suggesting the court followed standard E.D.N.Y. default practice.
§ 289 total profits remedyShenzen Tangson faces $216K judgment and potential enforcement risk
By failing to defend, Shenzen Tangson forfeited any invalidity, non-infringement, or damages defences it may have held. The default judgment is now final and enforceable. While collecting against a foreign defendant can be challenging in practice, the judgment creates a basis for asset seizure in U.S. jurisdictions, customs exclusion orders, and potential enforcement in jurisdictions where Tangson holds assets. The defendant’s uncontested exposure suggests it may have lacked U.S. counsel or made a deliberate decision to abandon the matter.
Foreign defendant enforcement riskDesign patents: a potent tool against overseas copycat manufacturers
This case illustrates that U.S. design patents — often undervalued in IP portfolios — can yield substantial monetary awards against foreign manufacturers via the § 289 total profits rule. For consumer goods companies with distinctive product aesthetics, registering ornamental designs and monitoring e-commerce platforms and import data for copycats is commercially sound. The $216K award in a niche houseware category signals that design patent litigation against non-appearing foreign defendants can be cost-effective with the right evidence framework.
Design IP vs. foreign copycatsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd. | Company | Decorative homewares company — holder of design patent USD846947S for cigar-holder drinking glassSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shenzen Tangson Houseware Co., Ltd.. | Company | Shenzen Tangson Houseware Co., Ltd. — Chinese houseware manufacturer accused of copying the Lighten-Life Cigar Glass designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Bochner | Attorney | Counsel for Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael G. Gabriel | Attorney | Counsel for Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Scanlon’s Report and Recommendation in full, awarding Godinger the entirety of the requested total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. The pre-judgment interest calculation — anchored to November 16, 2021, not the filing date — suggests the magistrate identified that date as the operative commencement of infringer profits. The award’s acceptance without reduction indicates Godinger’s damages evidence was sufficiently documented to satisfy the court’s scrutiny even in the absence of adversarial challenge, a meaningful threshold in default proceedings.
USD846947S — Ornamental design for a drinking glass with cigar holder
USD846947S (application no. US29/673476) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a drinking glass featuring an integrated cigar holder. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect only the non-functional, visual characteristics of an article — meaning the scope of protection is defined by the drawings, not written claims. The patent covers the specific aesthetic configuration of the Lighten-Life Cigar Glass, which was commercialised in at least two forms: a rounded variant and a semi-circular variant.
In the consumer homewares and barware sector, distinctive product silhouettes are a primary differentiator and a target for low-cost overseas duplication. USD846947S represents a defensible moat around a novel product form that combines two functional categories — drinking glassware and cigar accessories — into a single ornamental article. For competitors and private-label manufacturers in the barware space, this patent signals that Godinger actively monitors and enforces its design registrations, raising the risk calculus for any look-alike product aimed at the U.S. market.
Should you run an FTO against USD846947S before launching a cigar-holder glassware product?
Any company developing or importing drinking glasses with integrated cigar holders — including barware brands, private-label manufacturers, and e-commerce importers — should assess USD846947S before bringing a product to market. Design patent infringement is an objective visual similarity test: if your product’s overall ornamental appearance is substantially similar to the patent drawings as perceived by an ordinary observer, you face infringement exposure regardless of whether the functional elements differ. The § 289 total profits remedy means that even modest sales volumes can generate significant damage awards.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD846947S against your proposed product designs, identify related design family members, and flag co-pending applications in the barware and novelty glassware design space. Eureka’s image-based design search goes beyond keyword matching to surface visually proximate patents — giving your product team a defensible clearance record before launch or import.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0846947S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in U.S. consumer goods and barware
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions filed in U.S. district courts involving consumer homewares, barware, and ornamental product design disputes.
What this case signals for the decorative homewares IP landscape
A default win in a niche design patent case reveals broader lessons for consumer goods brands facing overseas manufacturing rivals.
Design patents activate § 289 total profits — a stronger damages lever than utility patents
Unlike utility patent damages, which typically require apportionment, design patent holders can recover an infringer’s entire profits on an article bearing the protected design. Godinger’s $185,796 total profits award — with no apportionment required — demonstrates why design registrations deserve serious investment in consumer goods portfolios.
Foreign defendants’ non-appearance doesn’t mean an easy road to collection
Despite the uncontested liability, this case ran 1,601 days — indicating that serving foreign defendants, building a damages record, and navigating the R&R process adds significant time even without adversarial opposition. Plaintiffs should budget for multi-year timelines and plan a parallel enforcement strategy from day one.
Godinger v Shenzen — key questions answered
The Eastern District of New York entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Godinger Silver Art Co., Ltd. on September 26, 2025. The court awarded $185,796.00 in total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, plus $30,383.65 in pre-judgment interest at the three-month T-Bill rate compounded annually from November 16, 2021, for a total award of $216,179.65.
The asserted patent is USD846947S (application no. US29/673476), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a drinking glass with an integrated cigar holder — the ‘Lighten-Life Cigar Glass,’ sold in rounded and semi-circular forms. Design patents protect the non-functional visual appearance of an article as depicted in the patent drawings.
Although Shenzen Tangson Houseware did not appear or defend, the case still required proper service on a foreign defendant — a process governed by the Hague Convention and often time-consuming — as well as a full damages assessment. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on the damages figure, which the district judge then adopted, adding procedural steps that extend timelines beyond a simple uncontested domestic default.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent infringer is liable for total profits from the sale of articles bearing the infringing design — no apportionment to the patented feature is required. In a default context, the plaintiff must submit evidence of the defendant’s revenues from infringing sales. Courts then calculate profits based on gross revenues attributable to the accused articles. Godinger’s award of $185,796.00 reflects the court’s acceptance of this evidence without adversarial challenge.
The pre-judgment interest was calculated from November 16, 2021 — six months after the May 12, 2021 filing date — rather than from the filing date itself. This date likely reflects the magistrate judge’s determination of when infringer profits were first clearly accruing or when the damages period commenced, consistent with a judicially established benchmark for the interest calculation. The T-Bill rate is a conservative judicial standard commonly applied in E.D.N.Y. default matters.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.