Case: Wiss Joseph and Marie Joseph v. Dener Ceide, Dener Ceide Productions, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-06572 (E.D.N.Y.)
A trademark dispute pitting the owners of the “Zafem World Entertainment” mark against Haitian-American recording artist Dener Ceide has concluded in a confidential settlement, roughly a year and a half after a federal judge initially entered a $1 million default judgment against Ceide and his production company.
The Dispute
According to the complaint filed in September 2024 in the Eastern District of New York, plaintiffs Wiss Joseph and Marie Joseph had used the “Zafem World Entertainment” mark for nearly a decade to promote concerts featuring Haitian-American music and dance before registering it in 2021. They alleged that in May 2023, Dener Ceide and his company attempted to register the name “Zafem” for competing music services — an application the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected, specifically finding that the name would infringe on the plaintiffs’ existing rights.
Despite that rejection, the plaintiffs alleged, Ceide continued using the “Zafem” name commercially, launching a website and releasing a music album under it, and ignored cease-and-desist letters. The complaint brought three claims: trademark counterfeiting and infringement under the Lanham Act, false designation of origin, and common-law unfair competition.
Plaintiffs also sought emergency relief early in the case, but Judge Brian M. Cogan denied a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in September 2024 after defendants failed to appear at a scheduled hearing.
Default Judgment
After extended difficulties serving the defendants — which pushed back the case’s initial status conference multiple times into 2025 — the plaintiffs eventually obtained proof of service and, when the defendants still did not respond, requested and received clerk’s entries of default in May 2025.
Judge Cogan granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in a memorandum decision dated September 17, 2025. The court found the plaintiffs had established all elements of their infringement claims and that the defendants’ conduct — including the failed USPTO application, disregarded cease-and-desist letters, and continued use of the mark — showed willfulness. While plaintiffs had requested the Lanham Act’s $2 million statutory maximum for willful infringement, the court found no evidentiary basis to award that full amount, noting that plaintiffs could have offered evidence such as estimated revenues from infringing events or industry benchmarks. Instead, the court awarded $1 million in statutory damages and indicated a permanent injunction would follow, citing the defendants’ apparent dilution of a mark it found sufficiently well-recognized to qualify as “famous” under the statute. A default judgment in that amount was entered on September 18, 2025.
Defendants Fight Back
More than a month after judgment, attorney Kelly Paul Peters appeared on behalf of Ceide and his production company and, in late October 2025, moved to set aside the default judgment and to stay its enforcement. Around the same time, the plaintiffs raised new allegations that the defendants were attempting fresh trademark filings for similar marks — including “ZAFN,” “XAFM,” and a variation referencing Ceide’s production company — and had formed a new “Zafem LLC” entity, prompting the plaintiffs to seek contempt sanctions via an order to show cause.
On November 14, 2025, Judge Cogan issued a decision conditionally granting the defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment, partially granting their request to stay enforcement, and deferring a ruling on the contempt motion pending the defendants’ compliance with conditions attached to vacating the default (including posting a bond). After the defendants satisfied those conditions in late November 2025, the court vacated the default judgment, denied the contempt motion as moot, and reopened the case for litigation on the merits.
Litigation Resumes, Then Settles
With the case reopened, the defendants filed an answer and counterclaims in December 2025, and the parties proceeded through discovery on a schedule set by the court, including document exchanges and depositions running into the spring of 2026.
Rather than proceeding to a dispositive-motion or trial phase, the parties reached a resolution. On April 7, 2026, plaintiffs’ counsel notified the court that the case had settled pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement dated April 6, 2026, and asked the court to “so-order” a stipulation of dismissal and retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Judge Cogan declined that request, stating he would not retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement the court had never seen and that had not been publicly filed, and ordered the case to proceed as scheduled.
Two days later, the parties submitted a revised stipulation of dismissal that removed the request for the court to retain enforcement jurisdiction. On April 10, 2026, the court entered a stipulation and order dismissing the case with prejudice, closing the litigation. Under the terms disclosed in the stipulation, a $100,000 stay bond previously posted by the defendants was to be released, with proceeds distributed through defense counsel’s trust account in accordance with the confidential settlement.
Where Things Stand
The case is now closed, dismissed with prejudice, with the underlying settlement terms remaining confidential between the parties. The specifics of any ongoing rights to use the “Zafem” name — a central issue given the defendants’ apparent attempts to register related marks even after the initial default judgment — were not made public as part of the court record.
