Elbert P. Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, home to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms $1.1M Verdict in Trademark Dispute ($123K per Mark)

BySwift Law, PA

Case: Top Tobacco, L.P. v. Star Imps. & Wholesalers, Inc., 135 F.4th 1344 (11th Cir. 2025)

Top Tobacco, Republic Technologies, and Republic Tobacco sued two wholesale distributors—Star Importers & Wholesalers (and its president, Amin “Monty” Hudda) and Ziya Business Inc. d/b/a ZCell & Novelties (and its owner, Samadali Lakhani)—for distributing counterfeit TOP® and JOB® rolling papers. Investigations included undercover test purchases, laboratory testing in France, and a police raid that confirmed counterfeit papers were in both Star’s and Ziya’s supply chains. Plaintiffs described these brands as their “crown jewels” and emphasized both brand damage and consumer safety risks from unregulated ingredients.

The district court entered summary judgment on liability against both Star and Ziya, leaving willfulness, damages, and individual officer liability (Hudda and Lakhani) for trial. The court also entered permanent injunctions against both entities.

At trial, the jury returned two separate verdicts:

  • Star/Hudda: The jury found the infringement was not willful but awarded statutory damages of $123,000 per mark across nine marks (total $1,107,000). The jury also held Hudda personally liable.
  • Ziya/Lakhani: The jury likewise found the infringement not willful and awarded statutory damages of $138,000 per mark across nine marks (total $1,242,000). Lakhani was also held personally liable.

On appeal, Star argued that the $1.107 million award was excessive since it bore little relation to actual damages and that deterrence was improper absent willfulness. (Ziya settled.) The Eleventh Circuit rejected those arguments, holding that statutory damages under the Lanham Act are valid so long as they fall within the statutory range—$1,000 to $200,000 per mark for non-willful infringement. Because the awards were within that range and supported by evidence of brand value, consumer risk, and the need for deterrence, the appellate court affirmed.

Why It Matters

  • Brand Protection: Shows courts will uphold significant damages to protect brand integrity even without proof of willful infringement.
  • Risk of Counterfeiting: Businesses in consumer goods must monitor supply chains closely, as counterfeit sales can trigger both liability and safety concerns.
  • Litigation Exposure: Reinforces that statutory damages may far exceed actual losses, raising the stakes in trademark disputes.

Similar Posts