Case No.

1:23-cv-01513-RMR-NRN Document 20 filed 09/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4E2C03-E173-4AB3-B99D-08EDFAA85E9A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 23-cv-01513-RMR-NRN

GS HOLISTIC, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VAPORTOKE INC d/b/a COLORADO

VAPE & TOKE, and MONJED ABED

Defendants,

WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS ENGAGED

IN GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE THE INSTANT DISPUTE
WITH THE DEFENDANTS OF THE INSTANT CASE

The Plaintiff, GS HOLISTIC, LLC, hereby files its Response to the Court’s Order
to Show Cause dated August 22, 2023 [DE 11], as follows:

1. The Declarant, Chris Folkerts, is the CEO of the Plaintiff, GS HOLISTIC,

LLC, and he has personal knowledge or been advised by his attorneys, The Ticktin Law
Group, (“TTLG”) of the facts stated below.

2. The Plaintiff filed its Complaint against the Defendants on June 15, 2023
[DE 1].

3. On August 22, 2023, this court entered an Order to Show Cause for “why a
general order should not be issued in each of these near identical trademark/unfair
competition cases staying the cases pending submission of verification that Plaintiff or its
counsel has engaged in meaningful, in person, negotiation with each defendant and that
those efforts at negotiation have failed.” [DE 11].

4. GS HOLISTIC is in the business of manufacturing and distributing two

distinct products. The first product is a glass gravity infuser under the brand name
Stündenglass, the other is a line of portable hand-held vaporizers under the G Pen brand.
These products are sold throughout the United States and in other parts of the world.

5. In the case at bar, the suit involves the Stündenglass trademarks. These
 Case No. 1:23-cv-01513-RMR-NRN Document 20 filed 09/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4E2C03-E173-4AB3-B99D-08EDFAA85E9A

products generally have a wholesale price of $300.00 and a retail price of $599.99. Gross
sales of Stündenglass gravity infusers last year were $11,253,589. In recent years,
Chinese manufacturers of counterfeit goods have been flooding the U.S. market.

6. The Plaintiff has been in business since 2020 and has obtained three
trademarks for this product. At this juncture, counterfeiters have brought their product
into the marketplace through various distributors. The Plaintiff has sued distributors and
received numerous judgments in excess of one million dollars. Those judgments against
those distributors have, for the most part, not been collectable. Historically distributors
have maintained businesses until judgments have been obtained. They then disappear
only for new distributors to take their place. As such, policing one’s trademark rights in
such an environment has become a legal game of “Whack a Mole.”

7. The only plan or manner that we have been able to find, which effects the
flow of counterfeit competitive goods coming into the marketplace is to sue retailers and
push the stores into discontinuing their practice of buying counterfeit competitive
Stündenglass gravity infusers from distributors who market the counterfeit goods. As
such, we hired a respectable law firm, TTLG which we’ve determined has sufficient
resources to effectively cause change in the marketplace. We have seen this succeed
with similar products where TTLG represented Sream, Inc. in regard to its “RooR” brand.
Due to the suits against a number of stores, the stores stopped purchasing the counterfeit
RooR products, probably saving that company.

8. The investigators who go to stores are finding that in many areas, more than
one third of stores have counterfeits where rarely other places, such as the Florida Keys,
they may be rare. Overall we calculate that the costs of investment to uncover one
violating store, requires investigations of three legitimate stores. Expenses for
investigation, include travel costs for the investigator and purchase of the counterfeit
product in addition to the expenses involved in litigation.

9. The primary purpose and overall intent of these lawsuits being filed is to
stop illicit trade of counterfeit goods and to convert storeowners into legitimate customers.
In this regard, most of our settlements not only involve an amount to cover all expenses
and to receive some benefit, but also to issue credits to the stores for the wholesale cost
of goods. This has caused many conversions of stores which buy counterfeits to buy
legitimate goods, at least from the Plaintiff.

10. In fact, the amount which could be gained from the lawsuits is minor in
comparison to the amount which will be gained by stopping the intrusion into the
marketplace of counterfeit goods. This information is expected to be provided at the
hearing on September 26, 2023.

11. The undersigned has monitored the activities of TTLG and is aware of some
of the growing pains the firm has had in terms of need to redress counterfeiting. The
undersigned is aware of the cases where TTLG temporarily had insufficient personnel to
assure all defaults sought or Motions for Default Judgment filed in timely manner. This
has been corrected. It is not usual for TTLG to request continuances of scheduling

2
 Case No. 1:23-cv-01513-RMR-NRN Document 20 filed 09/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4E2C03-E173-4AB3-B99D-08EDFAA85E9A

conferences or delay cases in any way. This has occurred where parties are on verge of
settlement and has been rare.

12. TTLG has filed approximately 850 cases around the country. Of those,
there have only been an extremely limited number of cases where the Plaintiff has been
unable to engage in litigation properly. In all other cases which are proceeding with
litigation, the Plaintiff has properly served discovery requests and has responded in a
timely manner.

13. Previously TTLG has been building its staff, and the few instances where
Orders to Show Cause had been issued occurred at times when an overwhelming
caseload had caused missed case management reports and missed deadlines mainly of
moving for defaults and for default judgments due to calendaring errors in a limited
number of cases. In any event, these failures are no longer occurring. Additional staff
has been hired by TTLG.

14. In the instant case, the following efforts have been made for settlement.
Along with serving the complaint, the documents, TTLG places a letter asking store to
call the law firm. This was done in this case and those letters have been effective, overall,
causing approximately 25% of those served to call. Furthermore, after being prompted
by this Court’s August 22, 2023, Order to Show Cause, individual phone calls have been
made in all Colorado cases. In this case, the Defendants were all formally served a copy
of the Complaint and respective summonses along with a notice of violations prompting
the defendants to call the Plaintiff to discuss the possibility of settlement and to build a
legitimate future relationship with the Plaintiff’s Client. Calls were made on September 11,
2023, and September 12, 2023, with the store clerk respectively who did not know or wish
to provide the store owner’s whereabouts. The clerk did, however, provide an email for
the store that the Plaintiff had already used to contact the Defendants for service of
process. Both calls were to engage in settlement and the clerk indicated the message
was received. The Plaintiff, despite reaching out to the clerk twice and sending a notice
of violations to engage with the Defendant, has received no response by any Defendant
to date by email or by phone. In addition, the Plaintiff waited until September 8, 2023, to
move for any default against the Defendants, providing ample time to in any way respond
to the Plaintiff’s attempts at resolution of the case without this Court’s assistance. This
procedure – serving a notice of violations, making phone calls, following up by email to
attempt meaningful engagement with defendants - is being implemented throughout the
United States.

15. Moreover, notwithstanding that previous to the filing of the present lawsuit,
pre-suit letters and phone calls had proved to be 100% ineffective, efforts will are now
being made in all cases which will be filed across the country to settle prior to suit being
filed. This did not occur in the case at bar, due to the fact that of the pre-suit letters sent
in the past, there was not one potential defendant who called. It is now realized that the
failures of the past do not mean conclusively that the defendants to the present suit would
have failed. As such, TTLG is changing its procedures throughout the United States to
assure that a letter is sent to avoid litigation in all cases at least a week prior to filing suit.

3
 Case No. 1:23-cv-01513-RMR-NRN Document 20 filed 09/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4E2C03-E173-4AB3-B99D-08EDFAA85E9A

16. As such, as all efforts made have been explained by the Plaintiff this Court
should not stay the cases pending the filing of this document, which is already filed..

Under penalties of perjury, I Declare that I have read the foregoing Declaration and
that the facts stated in it are true.

_______________________________
CHRIS FOLKERTS

4
 Case No. 1:23-cv-01513-RMR-NRN Document 20 filed 09/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: AD4E2C03-E173-4AB3-B99D-08EDFAA85E9A

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 22, 2023, the foregoing document was
served on all persons listed on the Service List via electronic mail.

Date: September 22, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Peter Ticktin

Peter Ticktin
Florida Bar #887935
The Ticktin Law Group
270 SW Natura Ave
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
Telephone: 561-232-2222
Serv512@legalbrains.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff, GS Holistic, LLC

/s/ Christina Gilbertson

Christina Gilbertson
Colorado Bar #38367
Gilbertson Law Office
1096 Cryolite Place
Castle Rock, CO 80108
Telephone: 561-232-2222
Christina@GilbertsonLawOffice.com
Serv607@LegalBrains.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff, GS Holistic, LLC.