1

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case Number: 2:22-cv-14369

GS HOLISTIC, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PSL RETAIL CORP d/b/a PSL SMOKE & VAPE 

SHOP, AGYEMANG ATTA YOSEPH 

FELLOWES, NAJI FELLOWES, and JULIO 

GARCIA,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANT AGYEMANG ATTA YOSEPH FELLOWES’S

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes, (“FELLOEWS” or “Defendant” interchangeably), by and 

through undersigned counsel hereby answers the Complaint filed by plaintiff, GS HOLISTIC, LLC

(“Plaintiff”), and denies any, and all, allegations or inference that are not expressly admitted or stated 

herein. Defendants state as follows as to Plaintiffs’ specific allegations in the Complaint and raise the 

following affirmative defenses:

Jurisdictional Allegations

1. This is a civil action against the Defendants for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, 

and false designation of origin and unfair competition, under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et. 

seq.).

ANSWER: The allegations of ¶ 1 make no specific factual allegation against the FELLOWES and 

therefore no answer is required; to the extent an answer is required from the Defendant, Defendants state 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 1 of 24
2

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

that 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et. seq. speaks for itself and all other allegations and inferences of ¶1, as alleged, 

are otherwise Denied.

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action that relate to 

trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin and unfair competition pursuant 

to the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

ANSWER: Admitted. 

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because PSL RETAIL CORP

d/b/a PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP isincorporated in and has its principal place of business in Florida.

The OWNERS reside in Florida, and the Defendants regularly conduct and solicit business in the State 

of Florida (including in this Judicial District).

ANSWER: Admitted.

Venue

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that the Defendants reside

in this district, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this

district, and the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Judicial District with respect to 

this action, and there is no other district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

ANSWER: Admitted.

Parties

5. GS HOLISTIC, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation that has its principal

place of business at 7162 Beverly Boulevard, #207, Los Angeles, California 90036. GS is the registered 

owner of the Stündenglass trademarks.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations of ¶ 5 of the Compl. and demand strict 

proof thereof as to corporate persona and validity of the Stündenglass trademarks (“Marks”) as 

alleged by Plaintiff. All other allegations and inferences of ¶ 5 are otherwise denied. 

6. PSL RETAIL CORP d/b/a PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP (hereinafter referred to as “PSL

SMOKE& VAPESHOP”)is a company/corporation that is incorporated in Florida, and hasits principal

place of business at 10008 S U.S. Hwy 1, Port St. Lucie, FL 34952. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP has 

engaged in the unlawful manufacture, retail sale, and/or wholesale sales of counterfeit Stündenglass 

glass infusers.

ANSWER: Defendant Admits in part and Denies in part the allegations of Paragraph 6. Defendant 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 2 of 24
3

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

admits PSLSMOKE& VAPESHOP is a Florida corporation operating in Port St.Lucie, Florida. 

Defendant denies PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP has engaged in the unlawful manufacture, retail 

sale, and/or wholesale sales of counterfeit Stündenglass glass infusers as alleged in ¶ 6. All 

other allegations or inferences of ¶ 6 are otherwise denied. 

7. At all times material to this Complaint, the OWNERS owned, managed, and/or operated

PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP, and regularly exercised the authority to purchase products for resale, 

decide which products PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP offered for sale, to hire and fire employees, and 

controlled the finances and operations of PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP.

ANSWER: Admitted.

Facts Common to All Counts

A. The History of The Stündenglass Brand.

8. Since 2020, GS has marketed and sold products using the well-known trademark 

“Stündenglass.” The Stündenglass branded products, such as glass infusers and accessories related 

thereto, are widely recognized nationally and internationally. Indeed, the Stündenglass brand is one of 

the leading companies in the industry, known for high quality and innovation of products.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demand strict proof thereof as to the validity of 

“Stündenglass” as a trademark under federal law (“Mark”) or variations of the Mark or Mark 

elements as alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

9. For approximately two years, GS has worked to distinguish the Stündenglassbrand as the 

premier manufacturer of glass infusers by emphasizing the brand’s unwavering use of quality materials 

and focusing on scientific principles which facilitate a superior smoking experience. Stündenglass 

branded products embody a painstaking attention to detail, which is evident in many facets of authentic 

Stündenglass branded products. It is precisely because of the unyielding quest for quality and

unsurpassed innovation that Stündenglass branded products have a significant following and 

appreciation amongst consumers in the United States and internationally.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity of “the 

Mark and variations or elements of the Mark as alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences 

of this paragraph are denied.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 3 of 24
4

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

10. As a result of the continuous and extensive use of the trademark “STÜNDENGLASS,” 

GS was granted both valid and subsisting federal statutory and common law rights to the Stündenglass 

trademark.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity of the 

Mark and variations or elements of the Mark as alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences 

of this paragraph are denied.

11. GS is the rightful owner of United States trademarks, which are registered on the 

Principal Register and have become incontestable within the meaning of Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 1065. The following is a list of GS’s federally registered trademarks:

a. U.S. Trademark Registration Number 6,633,884 for the standard character mark 

“Stündenglass” in association with goods further identified in registration in international class

011.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity 

of the federal registration of the Mark and variations or elements of the registered Mark as 

alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

b. U.S. Trademark Registration Number 6,174,292 for the design plus words mark 

“S” and its logo in association with goods further identified in the registration in international 

class 034.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity 

of the federal registration of the Mark and variations or elements of the registered Mark as 

alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

c. U.S. Trademark Registration Number 6,174,291 for the standard character mark 

“Stündenglass” in association with goods further identified in registration in international class 

034.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity 

of the federal registration of the Mark and variations or elements of the registered Mark as 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 4 of 24
5

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

12. The above U.S. registrations are valid, subsisting and in full force and effect.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity of the 

federal registration of the Mark and variations or elements of the registered Mark as alleged by the 

Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

The Stündenglass Brand in the United States.

13. GS has used the Stündenglass Marks in commerce throughout the United States, 

continuously, since 2020, in connection with the manufacturing of glass infusers and accessories.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the validity of the 

federal registration of the Mark and variations or elements of the registered Mark as alleged by the 

Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

14. The Stündenglass Marks are distinctive to both the consuming public and the Plaintiff’s 

trade. GS’s Stündenglass branded products are made from superior materials. The superiority of 

Stündenglass branded products is not only readily apparent to consumers, but to industry professionals 

as well.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the distinctiveness 

of the Mark and/or variations or elements thereof, or qualities of goods as alleged by the Plaintiff, all 

other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

15. The Stündenglass Trademarks are exclusive to GS and appear clearly on GS’s 

Stündenglass Products, as well as on the packaging and advertisements related to the products. GS has 

expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing, advertising, and otherwise 

promoting and protecting these Trademarks. As a result, products bearing GS’s Stündenglass 

Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade 

as being high-quality products sourced from GS.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge and demands strict proof thereof as to the presentation or 

display of the Mark on goods as alleged by the Plaintiff, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 5 of 24
6

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

are denied:

16. GS’s Stündenglass Products have become some of the most popular of their kind in the

world and have also been the subject of extensive unsolicited publicity resulting from their high-quality 

and innovative designs. Because of these and other factors, the GS brand, the Stündenglass brand, and

GS’s Stündenglass Trademarks are famous throughout the United States.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 16 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

17. Since 2020, GS has worked to build significant goodwill in the Stündenglass brand

in the United States. GS has spent substantial time, money, and effort in developing consumer 

recognition and awareness of the Stündenglass brand, via point of purchase materials, displays, through 

their websites, attending industry trade shows, and through social media promotion.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 17 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

18. In fact, the Stündenglass Products have been praised and recognized by numerous online 

publications, as well as publications directed to the general public.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 18 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

19. Due to the high quality of the brand and products, GS has collaborated with numerous 

celebrities and companies to create collaborations for the Stündenglass products.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 19 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

20. GS sells its products under the Stündenglass Marks to authorized stores in the United 

States, including in Florida. GS has approximately 3,000 authorized stores in the United States selling 

its products. As such, Stündenglass branded products reach a vast array of consumers throughout the 

country.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 6 of 24
7

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 20 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

21. It is because of the recognized quality and innovation associated with the Stündenglass 

Marks that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for genuine Stündenglass products. For example, 

a Stündenglass brand glass infuser is priced at $599.95, while a non- Stündenglass branded product is 

also being sold for up to $600, with a range of $199 to $600.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the actual value of the goods Plaintiff alleges in the Compl. is priced at 

$599.95 by the Plaintiff for retail sale. Defendant is without knowledge of the remaining allegation 

of ¶ 21 and demands strict proof thereof, all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

22. It is exactly because of their higher sales value that Stündenglass branded products are 

targeted by counterfeiters. These unscrupulous people and entities tarnish the Stündenglass brand by 

unlawfully selling glass infusers that have identical, or nearly identical, versions of the Stündenglass 

Marks affixed to products that are made with inferior materials and technology, thereby leading to 

significant illegitimate profits by store owners, such as the OWNERS.

ANSWER: Denied.

23. In essence, the OWNERS mislead consumers by selling in their stores low grade 

products that free ride on the goodwill of the Stündenglass brand, and in turn, the OWNERS reap 

substantial ill-gotten profits. The OWNERS’ conduct contributes to the complete flooding of the

marketplace with counterfeit products, which results in lost sales and damages to GS and irreparable harm to the 

Stündenglass brand’s image.

ANSWER: Denied.

24. Unfortunately, the current U.S. marketplace is saturated with counterfeit products – like 

those the OWNERS, through their store, PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP, have sold. As such, GS has 

been forced to scrupulously enforce its rights in order to protect the Stündenglass Marks against 

infringement. By exercising its Enforcement Rights, GS has proactively and successfully policed the 

unauthorized use of the Stündenglass Marks and/or counterfeit Stündenglass branded products 

nationwide. GS has had to bear great expense to seek out and investigate suspected counterfeiters in 

their attempt to clean up the marketplace.

ANSWER: Denied.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 7 of 24
8

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

Defendants’ Counterfeiting and Infringing Activities

25. The Defendants have, without consent of GS, previously offered to sell and sold within 

the United States commerce, glass infusers bearing reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable 

imitations of the Stündenglass Trademarks that were not made or authorized by GS. (Hereinafter the 

“Counterfeit Goods”).

ANSWER: Denied.

26. Nevertheless, the Defendants sold in commerce the Counterfeit Good using 

reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable imitations of one or more of the Stündenglass 

Marks. Specifically, the Defendants sold reproductions, counterfeits, copies, and/or colorable imitations 

of the Stündenglass Trademarks (hereinafter the “Infringing Marks”), detailed above.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 26 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

27. The Defendantshave, without the consent of GS, continued to sell the Counterfeit Goods 

bearing the Infringing Marks, bearing the likeness of the Stündenglass Trademarks in the United States.

ANSWER: Denied.

28. The marks affixed to the Counterfeit Goods that the Defendants have offered for sale are

spurious marks which are identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, the

Stündenglass Trademarks. The marks on the Counterfeit Goods are in fact counterfeit marks as defined 

in 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d).

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 28 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

.

29. In the ongoing investigation into the sales of counterfeit products bearing the 

Stündenglass Marks, on September 13, 2022, the PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP offered for sale 

Counterfeit Goods.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 29 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

30. Specifically, GS’s investigator purchased a glass infuser with a Stündenglass Mark 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 8 of 24
9

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

affixed to it, from PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP, for a cost of $427.99, charged to the account of GS’s 

investigator.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 30 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

31. Upon receipt, images and/or the physical unit of the product purchased from PSL 

SMOKE & VAPE SHOP were inspected by GS’s agent to determine its authenticity. The inspection of 

the purchased item confirmed that the glass infuser PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP sold to GS’s 

investigator was a Counterfeit Good with an Infringing Mark affixed to it.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 31, or the accuracy of the criterial 

used by the investigator, and demands strict proof thereof, all other remaining inferences of this 

paragraph are denied.

32. The OWNERS authorized, directed, and/or participated in PSL SMOKE & VAPE 

SHOP’s offer for sale, in commerce, of the Counterfeit Goods. The OWNERS’ acts were a moving, 

active, and/or conscious force behind PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP’s infringement of the Stündenglass 

Trademarks.

ANSWER: Denied.

33. The Defendants’ use of the counterfeit Stündenglass Trademarks began long after the 

registration of the Stündenglass Trademarks. GS nor any of its authorized agents have consented to the 

Defendants’ use of the Stündenglass Trademarks, or any use of reproductions, counterfeits, copies 

and/or colorable imitations thereof.

ANSWER: Denied.

34. The unauthorized sale by PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP, under the authority, direction

and/or participation of the OWNERS, of the Counterfeit Good(s) was an unlawful act in violation of the 

Lanham Act.

ANSWER: Denied.

35. The offer for sale by the Defendants of the Counterfeit Good(s) bearing GS’s Trademarks

has caused GS to suffer losses and has caused damage to the goodwill and reputation associated with 

the Stündenglass Trademarks, which are owned by GS.

ANSWER: Denied.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 9 of 24
10

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

36. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP’s use of the Stündenglass Marks includes displaying, 

selling, and/or offering for sale unauthorized copies of Stündenglass branded products. PSL SMOKE

& VAPE SHOP’s offering to sell, and the sale of the Stündenglass counterfeit products, bearing the 

Infringing Mark in this manner, was, and is, likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake and/or deceive 

consumers who purchase the Counterfeit Goods.

ANSWER: Denied.

:

37. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP used images and names identical to or confusingly similar 

to the Stündenglass Marks, to confuse customers and aid in the promotion and sales of Counterfeit 

Goods under the Infringing Mark.

ANSWER: Denied.

38. The Infringing Mark affixed to theCounterfeit Goods that PSL SMOKE& VAPE SHOP 

has distributed, provided, marketed, advertised, promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold, is confusingly 

identical or similar to the Stündenglass Marks that GS affixes to its glass infusers.

ANSWER: Denied.

39. The glass infusers that PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP sells and offersfor sale under the 

Infringing Mark are made of substantially inferior materials and inferior technology as compared to 

genuine Stündenglass brand products.

ANSWER: Denied.

40. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP has distributed, provided, marketed, advertised, 

promoted, offered for sale, and sold its water pipes under the Infringing Mark through its retail 

convenience store.

ANSWER: Denied.

41. Upon information and belief, PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP has marketed, advertised, 

and promoted its Counterfeit Goods under the Infringing Mark through point of purchase displays, 

and/or its website, and/or via social media promotion.

ANSWER: Denied.

42. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP and the OWNERS’ infringing acts as alleged herein have 

caused and are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among the relevant consuming public 

as to the source or origin of the Counterfeit Goods sold by PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP, and are likely 

to deceive, and have deceived, the relevant consuming public into mistakenly believing that the 

Counterfeit Goods sold by PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP originate from, are associated or affiliated 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 10 of 24
11

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

with, or otherwise authorized by GS.

ANSWER: Denied.

43. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP and the OWNERS’ acts are willful with the deliberate 

intent to trade on the goodwill of the Stündenglass Marks, cause confusion and deception in the 

marketplace, and divert potential sales of the Plaintiff’s glass infusers to PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP.

ANSWER: Denied.

44. PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP and the OWNERS’ acts are causing and, unless restrained,

will continue to cause damage and immediate irreparable harm to GS, theStündenglass Marks, and to its 

valuable reputation and goodwill with the consuming public for which GS has no adequate remedy at 

law.

ANSWER: Denied.

45. As a proximate result of the unfair advantage accruing to the OWNERS and PSL 

SMOKE & VAPE SHOP’s business from deceptively trading on GS’s advertising, sales, and consumer 

recognition, the OWNERS and PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP has made and will continue to make 

substantial profits and gains to which they are not in law or equity entitled.

ANSWER: Denied.

46. The injuries and damages sustained by GS has been directly and proximately caused by 

PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP and the OWNERS wrongful advertisement, promotion, distribution, sale 

and offers for sale of their goods bearing infringements or counterfeits of the Stündenglass Marks.

ANSWER: Denied.

47. Through such business activities, the OWNERS and PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP

purposefully derived direct benefits from its interstate commerce activities by targeting foreseeable 

purchasers in the State of Florida, and in doing so, have knowingly harmed GS.

ANSWER: Denied.

:

48. Furthermore, the sale and distribution of Counterfeit Goods by PSL SMOKE & VAPE 

SHOP has infringed upon the above-identified federally registered trademarks.

ANSWER: Denied.

49. The spurious marks or designations used by PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP in interstate 

commerce are identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, the Stündenglass Marks on goods

covered by the Stündenglass Marks. Such use therefore creates a false affiliation between PSL SMOKE 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 11 of 24
12

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

& VAPE SHOP, GS, and the Stündenglass Marks.

ANSWER: Denied.

50. Due to the actions of the OWNERS and PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP, GS has been

forced to retain the undersigned counsel and pay the costs of bringing an action forward. The OWNERS 

and PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP should be responsible for paying GS’s reasonable costs of the action.

ANSWER: Denied.

51. The OWNERS and PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP’s acts have damaged, and will 

continue to damage GS, and GS has no adequate remedy at law.

ANSWER: Denied.

52. Moreover, PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP and the OWNERS’ wrongful acts will continue 

unless enjoined by the Court. Accordingly, the OWNERS and PSL SMOKE & VAPE SHOP must be 

restrained and enjoined from any further counterfeiting or infringement of the Stündenglass Marks.

ANSWER: Denied.

Count One

Federal Trademark Counterfeiting and Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114

53. The Plaintiff avers Paragraphs 1 through 52, which are stated above and incorporate the 

allegations therein, as though they are fully restated and incorporated in this Count by reference.

ANSWER: Defendant re-avers and fully incorporates anew his answers and responses to ¶ 1 through ¶ 

52 of the Complaint as answer to ¶ 53.

54. GS owns the federally registered Stündenglass Trademarks, as set forth in more

detail in the foregoing paragraphs.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 54 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

55. The Defendants, without authorization from GS, have used in commerce spurious 

designations that are identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, the Stündenglass 

Trademarks on the same goods covered by the Stündenglass Trademarks.

ANSWER: Denied

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 12 of 24
13

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

56. The Defendants’ unauthorized use of counterfeit marks of the registered Stündenglass

Trademarks on and in connection with the Defendants’ offer(s) for sale in commerce is likely to cause 

confusion or mistake in the minds of the public.

ANSWER: Denied:

57. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein is willful and intended to cause confusion,

mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the Defendants, with GS or the 

Stündenglass Trademarks.

ANSWER: Denied

58. The Defendants’ acts constitute willful trademark infringement in violation of Section 

32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

ANSWER: Denied:

59. The Defendants’ actions constitute the use by the Defendants of one or more “counterfeit 

mark(s)” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(B).

ANSWER: Denied

60. The Defendants’ use in commerce of the counterfeit Stündenglass Trademarks has 

resulted in lost profits and business to GS, which are difficult to determine. The Defendants have also,

by selling counterfeit Stündenglass products, caused considerable damage to the goodwill of the 

Stündenglass Trademarks, and diminished the brand recognition of the Stündenglass Trademarks by 

introducing counterfeit products into the marketplace.

ANSWER: Denied:

61. By reason of the foregoing, thePlaintiff is entitled to, among other relief, injunctive relief, 

an award of statutory damages, and costs of the action under Sections 34 and 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

ANSWER: Denied

WHEREFORE, Defendants having Answered Count I of the Complaint, it prays that the Court enters 

an order of judgment in favor of Defendant under this Count I wherein the Plaintiff takes nothing for 

failures to state a claim beyond claims recoverable by Plaintiff individually, or by joinder of necessary 

individual parties; or otherwise Deny or Dismiss the claims, and that, Plaintiff pays Defendant’s costs, 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 13 of 24
14

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

including attorney fees relevant to the claims of this Count, or any relief it deems necessary, as a part of 

such order; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Defendant further 

prays for costs, including attorney fees relevant to meritorious affirmative defenses, or any relief it deems 

necessary, as a part of such order.

Count Two

Federal False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

62. The Plaintiff avers Paragraphs 1 through 52, which are stated above and incorporate the 

allegations therein, as though they are fully restated and incorporated in this Count by reference.

ANSWER: Defendant re-avers and fully incorporates anew his answers and responses to ¶ 1 through ¶ 

52 of the Complaint as answer to ¶ 62. 

63. GS owns the federally registered Stündenglass Trademarks, as set forth in more detail in 

the foregoing paragraphs.

ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge of the allegation of ¶ 63 and demands strict proof thereof, 

all other remaining inferences of this paragraph are denied.

64. The Defendants, without authorization from GS, has used in commerce spurious 

designations that are identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, the Stündenglass 

Trademarks on the same goods covered by the Stündenglass Trademarks.

ANSWER: Denied

65. The Defendants’ unauthorized use of counterfeit marks of the registered Stündenglass 

Trademarks on and in connection with the Defendants’ offers for sale in commerce is likely to cause 

confusion or mistake in the minds of the public.

ANSWER: Denied

66. The Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the Stündenglass Trademarks as 

alleged herein constitutes use of a false designation of origin and misleading description and 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 14 of 24
15

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

representation of fact in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

ANSWER: Denied

67. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein is willful and isintended to, and islikely

to, cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the 

Defendants, with GS or the Stündenglass Trademarks.

ANSWER: Denied

68. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein is causing immediate and irreparable harm 

and injury to GS, and to the goodwill and reputation of the Stündenglass Trademarks. Moreover, it will 

continue to cause damage GS and confuse the public unless enjoined by this Court.

ANSWER: Denied

69. GS has no adequate remedy at law.

ANSWER:

70. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to, among other relief, injunctive relief, 

an award of statutory damages, and costs of the action under Sections 34 and 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

ANSWER: Denied

WHEREFORE, Defendants having Answered Count II of the Complaint, it prays that the Court enters 

an order of judgment in favor of Defendant under this Count II wherein the Plaintiff takes nothing for 

failures to state a claim beyond claims recoverable by Plaintiff individually, or by joinder of necessary 

individual parties; or otherwise Deny or Dismiss the claims, and that, Plaintiff pays Defendant’s costs, 

including attorney fees relevant to the claims of this Count, or any relief it deems necessary, as a part of 

such order; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Defendant further 

prays for costs, including attorney fees relevant to meritorious affirmative defenses, or any relief it deems 

necessary, as a part of such order.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 15 of 24
16

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

DEFENDANT’S AFFIRAMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses, each as separate and distinct defenses to plaintiffs’ 

alleged claims relevant in the cause of action. Insofar as any of the following expresses denial of an 

element of any claim alleged against defendant, such expression does not indicate that Plaintiff is relieved 

of their burden to prove each and every element of any such claim or that defendant has assumed any 

burden of proof. 

Defendant demand JURY TRIAL on the following:

COMMON ALTERNATIVE FACTS APPLICABLE TO RESPECTIVE 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The following alternative facts are applicable, in whole or in part, to the Affirmative Defenses of the 

Defendant:

1. Defendants(s) did not manufacture, create, or produce materials/goods alleged as the Counterfeit 

Product; and did not reproduce, copy, or make colorable imitation of any part or labels that displayed 

Plaintiff’s Marks which were affixed on the Counterfeit Product.

2. Defendants(s) purchased the alleged counterfeit goods from a Florida distributor who has common 

ownership in an establishment that at all times material was an authorized retailer of the Plaintiff and

which operated in the same retail space in Palm Beach County as the distributor at the time of the 

Defendants’ purchase(s). The retailer operated in the front portion of the retail space, the distributor 

in the back portion of the same retail space and shared a door to pass between one business to the 

other. No notice or distinction between the two businesses was given to the public between the two 

businesses, or the Defendants prior to purchase.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 16 of 24
17

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

3. Defendants purchased two (2) items that could comprise any kind of infringement of the Plaintiff’s 

alleged Marks. The goods were presented as originating from the Plaintiff, and no other source, and 

being sold under apparent authorization of the Plaintiff. 

4. At the time of purchase by the Defendant, the goods displayed a letter “S” printed though the center 

of a pill or capsule bearing the name “Stündenglass” and was told by the third-party distributor seller 

that the product was new and otherwise genuine from the manufacturer.

5. At the time of purchase by the Defendant, the Defendant had never encountered the product in the 

marketplace before and this was the first time Defendant had ever seen the design or the Marks 

comprising a letter “S” printed though the center of a pill or capsule or seen or heard the name 

“Stündenglass.”

6. Defendants sold one (1) item to the public as a sample product. The other sale of the remaining sample 

item was sold to an agent of the Plaintiff, who purchased it not as a member of the public, but for the 

purpose of is agency.

7. Sample items have a lower retail price than regular merchandise and less than the retail price offered 

by the Plaintiff of $599.95 USD. See, Compl. ¶ 21.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT AS LIMIT TO DAMAGES

As a first, separate, and affirmative defense, Defendant evokes the affirmative defense of 

INNOCENT INFRINGER. Defendant asserts paragraphs 1- 7 as though set forth in Facts Common to all 

Affirmative Defenses as a part of this Affirmative Defense. To the extent that Defendant may have infringed 

upon, diluted or otherwise have used any counterfeited Plaintiff’s Marks or product, Plaintiff is limited in 

relief to loss of profit, actual damages sustained or nominal damages because of the extenuating 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 17 of 24
18

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

circumstances surrounding the acts of infringing use of Defendant and the limited occurrence, duration 

and extent of their infringing conduct; to wit purchase of two items for resale to sample sales of the 

product. Defendant had reasonable grounds under the circumstances to believe that the purchase and 

resale of the Counterfeit Products displaying Plaintiff’s Mark(s) and brand name was lawful; and 

Defendant actually believed that the purchase and resale of the Counterfeit Products with plaintiff’s Marks 

was lawful. 

The imposition of punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendant is improper pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) or permanent injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or alternatively on 15 U.S.C. § 1117

(a) through (c), 15 U.S.C. § 1118, based upon their conduct and the extenuating circumstances 

surrounding their infringement or use of the Counterfeit Products displaying the Plaintiff’s Marks. 

Defendant did not knowingly and purposefully capitalize on, or appropriate either directly or indirectly,

the goodwill of the Plaintiff. Defendant believed the Mark(s) of the two (2) products were lawful as 

presented to indicate the source of origin as the plaintiff and exercised good faith, acted in a commercially 

reasonable manner based upon their limited knowledge of the Mark(s) of the Plaintiff and under the 

circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Defendant praysthat the Court enters an order of judgment wherein the Plaintiff 

is denied recovery for statutory damages attributable reckless or willful conduct, and that sanction is 

unnecessary for future deterrence, deny permanent injunction against the Defendant, and enter an award 

of lost profits, actual damages or nominal damages; and that, any damages awarded be premised on the

conduct of Defendant as innocent infringers and limited to the extenuating circumstances surrounding of 

the isolated transaction, the good faith acts and reasonable reliance of the Defendant under prevailing law; 

and any other relief it deems necessary, as a part of such order. 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 18 of 24
19

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

SECOND AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

As a second, separate, and affirmative defense, Defendant invokes the doctrine of EQUITABLE 

ESTOPPEL. Defendant asserts paragraphs 1- 7 as though set forth in Facts Common to all Affirmative Defenses 

as a part of this Affirmative Defense. To the extent that Defendant may have infringed upon, diluted or 

otherwise have used any counterfeited Plaintiff’s Mark(s) or products, Plaintiff is barred from, or 

otherwise limited in, recovery by the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel. Defendant was misled and given 

false information about the Counterfeit Products by the third-party - the distributor/retailer who sold 

Defendant the products displaying the Plaintiff’s Mark(s). This included statements and action and silence 

and inaction on the origin of the product, leading Defendants to infer that the Counterfeit Product it was 

purchasing was Plaintiff’s product, and not counterfeit, and that Plaintiff was source of origin.

WHEREFORE, Defendant praysthat the Court enters an order of judgment wherein the Plaintiff 

is barred recovery for damages attributable reckless or willful conduct, and that sanction is unnecessary 

for future deterrence, deny permanent injunction against the Defendants, and/or limit the award of any 

damages to lost profits, actual damages or nominal damages under application of the doctrine of Equitable 

Estoppel in consideration of the extenuating circumstances surrounding of any infringement by 

Defendants under prevailing law; and any other relief it deems necessary, as a part of such order. 

THIRD AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE

LACHES

As a third, separate, and affirmative defense, Defendants invoke the doctrine of LACHES. 

Defendant asserts paragraphs 1- 7 as though set forth in Facts Common to all Affirmative Defenses as a part of this 

Affirmative Defense. To the extent that Defendants have infringed upon, diluted, or otherwise have used 

any counterfeited Plaintiff’s Mark(s) or product in his store location Plaintiff is barred from, or otherwise 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 19 of 24
20

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

limited in, recovery by the doctrine of Laches. Neither Defendant nor his company advertised the 

Plaintiff’s Mark(s) or counterfeit products. The products in question were simply placed on the shelf in 

his store location with no public advertising or marketing. No special effort was made to sell the items as 

this was Defendant’s first contact with a product of that shape and type used as a gravity water pipe for 

smoking. The third-party seller from which Defendant purchased the infringing or counterfeit products is 

commonly owned by a party with an authorized retailer of the Plaintiff operating from the same location. 

The seller provided no reasonable distinction between the two business or disclosed if operated distinct 

or as one and the same. The Seller made no statement to Defendant that the product was counterfeit or 

otherwise informed Defendant of the possibility that product displayed anything other than lawful 

Mark(s). Furthermore, no statement was made to Defendant that the seller was not authorized by the 

Plaintiff to resell the product. Defendant reasonably relied on the permit apparently granted him by 

Plaintiff’s authorized retailer. Under the doctrine of Laches Plaintiff is barred from recovery and relief 

for infringement attributable to display of the product or product packaging at his retail store location.

WHEREFORE, Defendant praysthat the Court enters an order of judgment wherein the Plaintiff 

is barred recovery for use or display of the Plaintiff’s Mark(s) at the Defendant’s retail store location under 

the application of the doctrine of Laches under prevailing law; and any other relief it deems necessary, as 

a part of such order. 

FOURTH AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE

GOOD FAITH & REASONABLE RELIANCE

As a third, separate, and affirmative defense, Defendants invoke the doctrine of GOOD FAITH and 

REASONABLE RELIANCE. Defendant asserts paragraphs 1- 7 as though set forth in Facts Common 

to all Affirmative Defenses as a part of this Affirmative Defense. To the extent that Defendants have 

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 20 of 24
21

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

infringed upon, diluted, or otherwise have used any counterfeited Mark(s) of Plaintiff or product, the 

award of actual damages, not statutory damages against the Defendant is warranted for the following 

objective reasons: (1) Defendant purchased and resold goods at nominal profit margin, that when offset by costs, does not represent an unfair advantage under federal statute(s); (2) the facts and 

circumstances relegated defendant to relying upon the origin of good as labeled which caused

intervening confusion to the Defendant, and which was caused not by the conduct of the Defendants, 

but caused by conduct and misrepresentation of a third-party seller who had superior knowledge and 

control when selling the items to Defendant and through misrepresentations and omissions misled 

Defendant to purchase and resell to his detriment; (3) Defendant made appropriate inquiry at time of 

sale as to origin of the goods based upon circumstances; (4) the counterfeit products in question

materially mimicked the structure and format of Plaintiff’s Mark(s) and design and were substantially 

similar to the format to Plaintiff’s Mark(s) and Defendant believed those to be authentic; and (5) the 

facts and circumstances of the transaction did not afford to test or authenticate the genuineness of the 

alleged counterfeit goods, and genuineness was limited to appearance only – Defendant had no prior 

knowledge of materials and quality of Plaintiff’s products for any comparison at time of purchase; (6)

Defendant had no part in the manufacturing or production of the goods in question for purpose 

knowledge of infringement or counterfeiting of goods. Plaintiff is barred from statutory damages as to 

willful conduct as the Defendant acted in good faith and reasonable reliance the product was authentic 

and origin was the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court enters an order of judgment wherein the 

Plaintiff is denied statutory, and that any actual damages are set-off by the good faith reliance of the 

defendant of prevailing law; and any other relief it deems necessary, as a part of such order.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 21 of 24
22

Defendant Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Answer and Affirmative Defenses

DEFEDNANT’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Defendant reservesthe right to raise additional affirmative defenses or amend its now existing affirmative 

defenses to which it may be entitled, or which may be developed during discovery, including additional 

unique affirmative defenses applicable. Defendant further reserves the right to assert such additional 

affirmative defenses as the need arises, insofar as it is appropriate in this case based upon the claims.

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 22 of 24
23

DATED: April 14, 2023

Respectfully Submitted on behalf of Defendant

Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

By: __/s/_Edward _A. Maldonado /s/__

Edward A. Maldonado, Esq.

Law Offices of Edward A. Maldonado, P.A.

2850 Douglas Road. Suite 303

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 477-7580 ex 214

E-mail: eam@maldonado-group.com

Secondary Email: lawclerk@maldonado-group.com

Attorney for Defendant

Agyemang Atta Yoseph Fellowes

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 23 of 24
24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this April 14, 2023 a true and correct copy of the above 

foregoing ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by the Defendant was served copy and notice 

upon the Plaintiff via the court’s electronic filing [ECF] system and e-mail on the following:

COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ms. Gabrielle Alexa Penalta, Esq.

The Ticktin Law Group

270 SW Natura Avenue

Deerfield Beach. Florida 33441

Email: Serv600@LegalBrains.com

Secondary Email: Serv555@LEgalBrains.com

Tel: 813-448-1129

Attorney for the Plaintiff. 

Respectfully Submitted, Date: April 14, 2023

On Behalf of Defendant

AGYEMANG ATTA YOSEPH FELLOWES

Law Offices of Edward A. Maldonado, P.A.

MALDONADO LAW By: __/s/_Edward _A. Maldonado /s/__

2850 Douglas Road. Suite 303 Edward A. Maldonado, Esq.

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Florida Bar No. 0129781

Telephone: (305) 477-7580 ex 214 Attorney for the Defendants

Facsimile: (305) 477-7504

E-mail: eam@maldonado-group.com

And Lawclerk@maldonado-group.com

Case 2:22-cv-14369-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 24 of 24