GS Holistic v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Hookah Design Patent Case
GS Holistic, LLC sued 34 anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across platforms including Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress for infringing two registered hookah design patents. The Illinois Northern District Court entered default judgment in 73 days, awarding profits and a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants.
Serial design-patent enforcement against grey-market hookah sellers
Filed on 19 November 2024 in the Illinois Northern District Court, GS Holistic, LLC brought an infringement action against a Schedule A roster of 34 e-commerce storefronts and individual seller aliases operating across major online marketplaces. The complaint centred on two US design patents — D943,817 (issued February 2022) and D970,804 (issued November 2022) — both covering the ornamental design of GS Holistic’s hookahs. The alleged infringing products were offered for sale to US consumers, including Illinois residents, with payment accepted in US dollars.
None of the named defendants appeared or answered the complaint. Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins entered a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with an asset freeze early in the proceedings, then granted plaintiff’s motion for default and default judgment on 31 January 2025. The court awarded disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, with individual awards ranging from $250 to $911 per defendant, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting all defendants from selling, offering for sale, or importing the infringing product. Third-party payment processors and marketplace platforms were ordered to release frozen funds to GS Holistic within seven days.
Resolving in just 73 days, the timeline reflects the default posture rather than contested merits litigation. The rapid closure is consistent with GS Holistic’s established playbook of filing Schedule A actions against anonymous overseas e-commerce sellers who rarely surface to defend. What remains unknown from the public record is the total commercial scale of infringing sales — individual awards of $250 suggest many defendants had minimal identifiable proceeds — and whether any defendants will seek to vacate the default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
Filing to Default Judgment in 73 days
73 days — faster than the median N.D. Ill. IP case closure; resolved by default, not trial
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment bypasses merits — but the injunction is fully enforceable
When defendants fail to appear, the court may enter judgment as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, the court still made independent findings of personal jurisdiction and patent infringement before granting relief. The resulting permanent injunction and profit disgorgement order carry full legal force, enforceable against third-party platforms without any further merits adjudication.
Rule 55 default procedureGS Holistic secures permanent injunction and frozen-account recovery
GS Holistic obtains a permanent injunction, disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (design-patent infringer’s profits remedy), and release of frozen marketplace and payment-processor funds — all within 73 days. The asset-freeze mechanism, served on Amazon, Temu, TikTok, AliExpress, and others, means recovery does not depend on defendants voluntarily paying.
§289 profits + injunctionDefendants face permanent ban and frozen assets with no merits defence on record
All 34 seller aliases are permanently enjoined from selling or importing the infringing hookahs. Their marketplace accounts and payment accounts are frozen up to the damages awarded. Defendants retain a narrow window to seek vacatur of the default under Rule 55(c) by showing good cause, but in Schedule A practice this is rare, particularly for overseas sellers with no US counsel.
Permanent injunction issuedPlatform liability orders set a compliance precedent for e-commerce intermediaries
The order compels Amazon, Temu, TikTok Shop, Wish, Etsy, DHgate, and eBay to disable listings and release funds within seven days of notice. This enforcement model — leveraging platform compliance rather than chasing individual sellers — is increasingly standard in design-patent Schedule A cases and raises IP risk exposure for any marketplace hosting unverified third-party sellers in the hookah and smoking accessories space.
Platform takedown ordersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | GS Holistic, LLC | Company | Hookah products brand — holder of design patents D943,817 and D970,804Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 34 anonymous e-commerce seller aliases operating across global online marketplacesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for GS Holistic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for GS Holistic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for GS Holistic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Joseph Juettner | Attorney | Counsel for GS Holistic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing GS Holistic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order is notable for the independent jurisdictional and infringement findings made prior to granting relief — the court did not merely rubber-stamp the default but expressly found personal jurisdiction over foreign sellers based on US-targeted e-commerce activity and expressly held defendants liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The profit awards under § 289 reflect identified sales proceeds; the $250 floor for most defendants suggests limited recoverable funds were located in frozen accounts, not a judicial cap on liability.
USD943,817 & USD970,804 — Ornamental hookah designs by GS Holistic
US Design Patent D943,817 (application 29/749,087, issued February 15, 2022) and D970,804 (application 29/812,627, issued November 22, 2022) both protect the ornamental appearance of GS Holistic’s hookah products. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
The two patents form a temporally layered design portfolio, suggesting GS Holistic has deliberately sought to protect successive or variant hookah designs as its product line evolved. This stacking strategy is commercially significant: it expands the scope of potential infringement claims and reduces the risk that a single invalidation defeats enforcement. For competitors and OEM manufacturers in the hookah and smoking accessories category, both patents represent active design-protection assets that must be cleared before going to market.
Should your hookah product run an FTO against D943,817 and D970,804?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of hookahs, shisha pipes, or visually similar water-pipe products targeting US consumers should treat these two GS Holistic design patents as live clearance requirements. GS Holistic has demonstrated both the willingness and the legal infrastructure to file Schedule A actions rapidly — this case reached default judgment in 73 days. A failure to clear these designs before listing on Amazon, Temu, or AliExpress creates an immediate asset-freeze and permanent-injunction risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map D943,817 and D970,804 against your product’s visual characteristics, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any continuation or continuation-in-part applications in GS Holistic’s portfolio that may extend protection. Eureka’s prosecution history viewer also lets you assess the scope of the claimed ornamental design and identify features that were disclaimed during examination — critical for designing around without litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0970804S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hookah design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
GS Holistic has filed dozens of Schedule A design-patent actions in N.D. Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of hookah products — browse comparable cases below.
What this case signals for the hookah and smoking accessories IP landscape
GS Holistic’s Schedule A strategy demonstrates how design patents can be weaponised against the grey-market e-commerce supply chain at scale.
Design patents are highly effective against anonymous e-commerce counterfeiters
Design patents like D943,817 and D970,804 are particularly powerful in Schedule A actions because infringement turns on visual similarity alone — no claim construction required. Combined with the § 289 total-profits remedy, they generate enforceable judgments even at low individual award levels, making serial filing economically viable for brand holders.
Asset-freeze orders shift the enforcement burden onto compliant platforms
By serving freeze and release orders on Amazon, Temu, TikTok, and payment processors, GS Holistic bypasses the practical difficulty of recovering from anonymous overseas sellers. IP teams and marketplace compliance functions should treat these orders as routine and build seven-day response workflows to avoid contempt exposure.
GS v Partnerships — key questions answered
GS Holistic asserted two US design patents: D943,817 (issued February 15, 2022, application 29/749,087) and D970,804 (issued November 22, 2022, application 29/812,627), both covering the ornamental design of its hookah products.
None of the 34 named defendant seller aliases appeared or answered the complaint. The court independently found personal jurisdiction based on defendants’ US-targeted e-commerce activity and found liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271 before entering default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.
The court awarded disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Most defendants were awarded at $250 each, with a small number above that floor — the highest individual award was $911. Awards reflect identified proceeds in frozen accounts at the time of the order.
The order required compliance from Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, TikTok (including ByteDance and multiple TikTok entities), DHgate, PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay — all required to disable listings and release frozen funds within seven calendar days of receiving the order.
Defendants may move to vacate the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) by demonstrating good cause, which typically requires showing a meritorious defence, lack of culpable conduct, and no prejudice to plaintiff. In Schedule A practice involving anonymous overseas sellers, such motions are rare but possible within a reasonable time after entry of judgment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.