GS Holistic, LLC v. Mehdi Ghounim

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 8:24-cv-01945
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

GS HOLISTIC, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-1945-KKM-SPF

MEHDI GHOUNIM,

Defendant.

ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting GS Holistic, LLC’s motion for default judgment against Mehdi Ghounim. (Docs. 31, 32). The deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation has passed without either party lodging an objection. Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper- Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, I adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT which shall read:

a. “Judgment is entered in favor of GS Holistic, LLC, and against Mehdi Ghounim, in the amount of $150,672.00.” b. “Mehdi Ghounim, and his agents and employees, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with him, are

PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from directly or indirectly infringing the Stündenglass Marks, including these restrictions: importing, exporting, making, manufacturing reproducing, assembling, using, acquiring, purchasing,

offering, selling, transferring, brokering, consigning, distributing, storing, shipping, licensing, developing, displaying, delivering, marketing, advertising, or promoting counterfeit Stiundenglass products, meaning products bearing the Stiindenglass trademarks (No. 6,633,884; No. 6,174,292; and No. 6,174,291), counterfeits, copies, or colorful imitations thereof.” 4, The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and TERMINATE any pending motions or deadlines. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 21, 2025. 4 ay Ramla Ws ate Kathryn’Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge