Voesh v. J&K Beauty Supply: $100K Default Judgment for PEDI IN A BOX Counterfeiting
Voesh Corporation secured a default judgment, $100,000 in statutory damages, and a broad permanent injunction against J&K Beauty Supply, LLC after the defendant failed to defend allegations of willful trademark counterfeiting. The court found J&K deliberately copied the federally registered PEDI IN A BOX mark across spa pedicure products, with the case resolving in approximately 711 days.
Willful counterfeiting of a beauty brand triggers maximum statutory damages
On June 26, 2023, Voesh Corporation filed suit against J&K Beauty Supply, LLC in the Southern District of Texas before Judge Charles Eskridge, asserting trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) of the Lanham Act. The dispute centered on J&K’s alleged sale and distribution of counterfeit spa products bearing the PEDI IN A BOX mark (U.S. Reg. No. 4,754,743), a federally registered trademark covering body lotions, foot scrubs, skin masks, and related pedicure spa kits sold under the DELUXE PEDICURE® and PYRAMID SPA PRODUCTS® brands.
After J&K’s pleadings were stricken and the Clerk entered default on April 15, 2025, Voesh moved for default judgment and a permanent injunction. On June 6, 2025, Judge Eskridge granted the motion in full: awarding $100,000 in statutory damages at the willful-counterfeiting rate of $100,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(c)(1)–(2), issuing a sweeping permanent injunction, ordering destruction of all infringing materials under 15 U.S.C. § 1118, and awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, and maximum-rate interest to Voesh.
The 711-day duration is longer than many default cases, suggesting procedural complexity — including the striking of defendant’s pleadings — preceded the Clerk’s formal default entry. The willfulness finding, driven by J&K’s non-participation, enabled Voesh to access the enhanced statutory-damages tier rather than actual damages, a strategic advantage of the Lanham Act’s counterfeiting provisions. What drove J&K’s complete failure to defend — whether resource constraints, dissolution, or litigation strategy — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 711 days
711 days from filing to default judgment — longer than typical default resolutions, reflecting procedural steps to strike defendant’s pleadings
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: all allegations deemed admitted by law
When a defendant fails to appear or defend, the court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, J&K’s pleadings were stricken, Clerk’s default was entered, and the court applied the six Lindsey factors to confirm judgment was appropriate. All well-pleaded allegations — including willful counterfeiting — were taken as true, removing Voesh’s burden to prove liability at trial.
Rule 55 default judgmentVoesh obtains maximum counterfeit-tier statutory damages plus injunction
Voesh secured $100,000 in statutory damages at the enhanced willful-counterfeiting rate under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), a permanent injunction covering all sales, marketing, and online use of any confusingly similar mark, mandatory destruction of infringing materials under § 1118, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The breadth of injunctive relief — including a ban on domain and trademark registrations — provides durable enforcement tools.
$100K + permanent injunctionJ&K faces permanent injunction and complete commercial bar on PEDI IN A BOX products
J&K Beauty Supply is now permanently enjoined from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or distributing any spa product bearing or confusingly similar to PEDI IN A BOX, and from registering any such mark in any registry. The destruction order removes existing inventory. With attorneys’ fees also awarded, J&K faces an open-ended liability exposure beyond the $100,000 judgment. No public record of J&K’s defence rationale or financial position exists.
Permanent injunction enteredLandmark counterfeiting signal for the beauty supply sector
This ruling reinforces that beauty supply retailers — not just manufacturers — face full Lanham Act exposure for stocking counterfeit spa products. The willfulness finding, reached by default, enabled enhanced statutory damages without actual-harm proof. Brands with federally registered marks in the personal care space should note that a counterfeiting claim, combined with a non-appearing defendant, can yield maximum damages and broad injunctive relief with relative procedural efficiency.
Willful counterfeiting exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Voesh Corporation | Company | Spa and beauty products brand — holder of U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 4,754,743 (PEDI IN A BOX)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | J & K Beauty Supply, LLC | Company | J&K Beauty Supply, LLC — beauty supply retailer alleged to have sold counterfeit PEDI IN A BOX spa productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jesus David Cabello | Attorney | Counsel for Voesh CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Munira Jesani | Attorney | Counsel for Voesh CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cabello Hall Zinda PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Voesh CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J & K Beauty Supply, LLC | Attorney | Counsel for J & K Beauty Supply, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen Bryant Tripp | Attorney | Counsel for J & K Beauty Supply, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Charles Eskridge | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order is unusually detailed for a non-contested proceeding, methodically applying the six Lindsey factors and making explicit findings of willfulness — a threshold that directly unlocks the enhanced $100,000-per-mark statutory damages tier under § 1117(c)(2). By grounding the willfulness finding in J&K’s deliberate non-participation and the counterfeiting nature of the mark, the order creates a clean record for downstream enforcement, including contempt proceedings if J&K violates the injunction. The destruction order under § 1118 further signals the court’s intent to achieve complete market clearance, not merely monetary deterrence.
US11478058B2 — Spa Pedicure Kit Products
US11478058B2 (application no. US16/923585) is the patent listed in the case record as involved in this proceeding. The core commercial dispute, however, centered on trademark infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,754,743 for the mark PEDI IN A BOX, which covers spa pedicure products including body lotions, foot scrubs, and skin masks. The trademark registration — as a federally registered mark — provided Voesh the legal basis for Lanham Act counterfeiting claims and access to enhanced statutory damages.
For competitors and private-label brands in the spa and personal care category, the existence of both a registered utility patent and a federally registered trademark covering the PEDI IN A BOX product format creates a layered IP barrier. Any product that replicates the combination pedicure kit format, packaging style, or brand identity risks exposure on multiple IP vectors — patent and trademark — simultaneously. This dual-protection posture is increasingly common among consumer goods brands seeking durable market exclusivity.
Should you run an FTO against US11478058B2 and the PEDI IN A BOX mark?
Any company developing or distributing multi-step spa pedicure kits, foot care product bundles, or similar at-home pedicure formats should assess both US11478058B2 and the PEDI IN A BOX trademark estate before commercialising. The court’s willfulness finding and the breadth of the permanent injunction — covering packaging, marketing, and online channels — mean that even indirect similarity in product presentation may carry litigation risk in the Southern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims landscape around US11478058B2, identify related Voesh patent family members, and cross-reference trademark registration data for the PEDI IN A BOX brand. For product teams designing spa kit SKUs or retailers evaluating new supplier lines, an FTO analysis run before launch is significantly cheaper than defending a Lanham Act counterfeiting claim — particularly where default judgment risk is high if resources constrain a full defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11478058B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Lanham Act counterfeiting cases in Texas federal courts — beauty & personal care
Explore comparable Lanham Act § 1114 trademark counterfeiting cases involving spa and beauty products litigated in the Southern District of Texas and related federal courts.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable DELUXE PEDICURE®-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedVoesh Corporation’s broader IP enforcement history
Voesh Corporation’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the personal care and beauty IP landscape
Default judgment outcomes in trademark counterfeiting cases reveal enforcement dynamics that brand owners and beauty distributors cannot afford to ignore.
Federal registration enables enhanced statutory damages without proving actual loss
Voesh’s ability to claim $100,000 per counterfeit mark per goods category under § 1117(c)(2) — without needing to quantify actual sales harm — illustrates the strategic premium of federal trademark registration for consumer goods brands. Beauty product companies operating without registered marks face a significantly higher litigation burden.
Retailers are not shielded from full Lanham Act liability for stocking counterfeits
J&K Beauty Supply, as a retailer rather than a manufacturer, nonetheless faced the full counterfeiting damages regime. Distributors and beauty supply chains should conduct due diligence on the provenance and trademark clearance of spa and personal care SKUs — particularly products bearing another brand’s distinctive packaging format.
Stricken pleadings suggest prior procedural conduct worth monitoring in J&K-linked entities
The fact that J&K’s pleadings were stricken before the Clerk’s default suggests early-stage procedural misconduct or court sanction — not merely a failure to respond. Competitors and brand owners should monitor whether principals of J&K are active in related entities. PatSnap Eureka can surface connected litigation and corporate records.
Permanent injunction scope extends to affiliates and third-party manufacturers — unusual breadth for a default
The injunction binds J&K’s officers, affiliates, agents, and all those acting in concert — and bars future trademark registrations. This unusually broad scope in a default judgment, entered without adversarial briefing on injunction scope, sets a useful template for brand enforcement pleadings in S.D. Tex.
Voesh v J — key questions answered
The Southern District of Texas entered a default judgment in favour of Voesh Corporation on June 6, 2025. The court awarded $100,000 in statutory damages for willful counterfeiting of the PEDI IN A BOX trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 4,754,743), a permanent injunction, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest against J&K Beauty Supply, LLC.
J&K Beauty Supply failed to file an answer, responsive pleading, or otherwise defend the lawsuit. The court noted that J&K’s pleadings were stricken. The Clerk entered default on April 15, 2025, and the court subsequently granted Voesh’s motion for default judgment after applying the six Lindsey factors and finding all conditions for entry of judgment satisfied.
The court awarded statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(c)(1) and (2) at the willful counterfeiting rate of $100,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods sold, offered for sale, or distributed. The court found J&K’s infringement deliberate and willful, qualifying for the enhanced tier. The total award of $100,000 reflects one counterfeit mark applied to one category of goods.
The injunction prohibits J&K, its officers, affiliates, employees, and agents from using PEDI IN A BOX or any confusingly similar mark in connection with spa products; manufacturing, distributing, or selling infringing spa products; advertising on any online or offline channel; registering any confusingly similar trademark or domain; and aiding any third party in doing any of the above. The court also ordered destruction of all infringing materials under 15 U.S.C. § 1118.
Federal registration of the PEDI IN A BOX mark was central to Voesh’s ability to pursue Lanham Act § 1114(1) infringement claims and access the enhanced statutory damages regime under § 1117(c) for counterfeit marks — without needing to prove actual damages. The registration also established Voesh as the senior user of the mark, a prerequisite finding for the permanent injunction.
Track beauty brand trademark enforcement before it reaches litigation
PatSnap Eureka monitors trademark registrations, patent filings, and litigation signals across the personal care and spa products sector. Run an FTO analysis on US11478058B2 or the PEDI IN A BOX mark before your next product launch.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.