Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Voesh v. J&K Beauty Supply: PEDI IN A BOX Trademark Default Judgment | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID4:23-cv-02340
FiledJun 2023
ClosedJun 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
711days
711 days from filing to default judgment — longer than typical default resolutions, reflecting procedural steps to strike defendant’s pleadings
Patents asserted
1
US11478058B2 — spa pedicure kit products; PEDI IN A BOX trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 4,754,743) also central to the infringement claims
Outcome
Default Judgment
Judgment entered against J&K Beauty Supply after failure to appear; all allegations taken as true by operation of law
Cost ruling
Fees Awarded
Court awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest to Voesh under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.4:23-cv-02340
CourtTexas Southern
JudgeCharles Eskridge
FiledJune 26, 2023
ClosedJune 6, 2025
Duration711 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

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

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUN 26 2023, JUN–JUL — 711 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Voesh Corporation v J & K Beauty Supply, LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Southern District Court. JUN 26 2023 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 6 2025 Default Judgment 711 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 judgment
Plaintiff outcome

Voesh 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 injunction
Defendant outcome

J&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 entered
Commercial implications

Landmark 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 exposure
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 4:23-cv-02340 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffVoesh CorporationCompanySpa and beauty products brand — holder of U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 4,754,743 (PEDI IN A BOX)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantJ & K Beauty Supply, LLCCompanyJ&K Beauty Supply, LLC — beauty supply retailer alleged to have sold counterfeit PEDI IN A BOX spa productsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJesus David CabelloAttorneyCounsel for Voesh CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMunira JesaniAttorneyCounsel for Voesh CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmCabello Hall Zinda PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Voesh CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJ & K Beauty Supply, LLCAttorneyCounsel for J & K Beauty Supply, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKaren Bryant TrippAttorneyCounsel for J & K Beauty Supply, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Charles EskridgeJudgeTexas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“On April 15, 2025, the Clerk entered default against Defendant J & K Beauty Supply, LLC (J&K”). Dkt. 52. On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff Voesh Corporation (“Voesh”) timely filed its Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“the Motion”). Dkt. 54. Having considered the briefings, the evidence of record, and argument of counsel, the Court finds that the Motion is meritorious and hereby GRANTED. The Court finds as follows: 1. Defendant has not answered the Original Complaint, filed a responsive pleading, or otherwise defended the lawsuit, as the Defendant’s pleadings have been stricken; 2. The Clerk properly entered default against Defendant; 3. Default judgment is proper because: a. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint [Dkt. 1] contain well-plead and substantively meritorious allegations of Defendant’s trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) of the Lanham Act, which are taken as true due to Defendants’ default; b. Each of the six Lindsey factors in assessing whether to enter default judgment weigh in favor of entering a default judgment; and c. The relief requested by Plaintiff does not differ in form as what Plaintiff requested in the Original Complaint. 4. Defendants acted deliberately and willfully in infringing Plaintiff’s federally registered trademark for PEDI IN A BOX (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,754,743) (“Plaintiff’s Mark”) in connection with the sale or offer of sale of Defendant’s spa products; 5. An award of statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(c)(1), (2) for Defendant’s willful infringement and use of a counterfeit mark of Plaintiff’s Mark in violation of 15 § U.S.C. § 1114(1) at a rate of $100,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, for a total award of $100,000 is just and appropriate; 6. Entry of a permanent injunction to stop Defendant from further trademark infringement is warranted, because, Plaintiff has shown: a. Plaintiff’s Mark is a protectable trademark; b. Plaintiff is the senior user of Plaintiff’s Mark; c. there is a likelihood of confusion between Defendant’s infringing mark and Plaintiff’s Mark because Defendant’s marks are counterfeits of Plaintiff’s Mark and are used in connection with the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of spa products, which causes a likelihood of confusion in consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendant’s goods or services to Plaintiff;d. Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer an irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law if a permanent injunction is not ordered. The Court ORDERS as follows: A. Enter a default judgment against Defendant for trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) of the Lanham Act pursuant to Count Two of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint; B. Award statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(c)(1), (2) for Defendants’ willful infringement and use of one mark in violation of 15 § U.S.C. § 1114(1) at a rate of $100,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, for a total award of $100,000 in favor of Plaintiff; C. Permanently enjoin Defendants, its officers, affiliates, employees, agents, and all others acting in concert with Defendants, from: i. Using “PEDI IN A BOX,” any derivation or phonetic equivalent, in connection with body lotions, foot scrubs, skin masks, any other similar products that infringe on Plaintiff’s federally registered trademark, namely U.S. Registration No. 4754743 (“Plaintiff’s Mark”), and from the sale, offering for sale, marketing, promotion, and advertising of counterfeit products bearing Plaintiff’s Mark, and any products that imply an association with or sponsorship with the Plaintiff. ii. Manufacturing, distributing, selling, promoting, or authorizing any third party to manufacture, distribute, sell, market, advertise or promote any products, including but not limited to body lotions, foot scrubs, skin masks, or similar spa products that bear the mark PEDI IN A BOX, or any other mark that is a counterfeit, copy, or confusingly similar derivative or variation of Plaintiff’s Mark; iii. Advertising or marketing body lotions, foot scrubs, skin masks, or similar spa products, bearing or in connection with Plaintiff’s Mark on any online posting, websites, marketing materials, letterhead, business cards, signage, or social media; iv. Publicly representing, or otherwise stating or implying any affiliation or connection with Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s Mark; v. Engaging in any activity that infringes Plaintiff’s rights in Plaintiff’s Mark; vi. Making or displaying any statement, representation, or depiction that is likely to lead the public to believe that any of the Defendant’s goods are approved, associated, authorized, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; vii. Registering or applying to register any trademark, domain name, trade name, or other source identifier or symbol of origin consisting of or incorporating Plaintiff’s Mark and any counterfeit, copy, derivative, or mark likely to be confused with the Plaintiff’s Mark or in connection with Plaintiff’s goods or services or which identify Plaintiff as their source; including PEDI IN A BOX; AND viii. Aiding, assisting, or abetting any other individual or entity in doing any act prohibited by sub-paragraphs (i-vii). D. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, order the destruction of all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptables, and advertisements in the possession of Defendant, bearing Plaintiff’s Mark any or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed; E. Defendant shall not attempt to register any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s Mark, including any mark incorporating or containing Plaintiff’s Mark or any counterfeit, copy, confusingly similar variation, derivative, or phonetic equivalent on any state or federal trademark registry; F. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on Defendant via certified mail at Defendant’s last two known addresses; G. Award Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees; H. Award costs to Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); I. Award pre- and post-judgment interest to Plaintiff at the maximum rate allowed by law; and J. All other relief the Court deems appropriate at law and equity.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 4:23-cv-02340, Texas Southern District Court

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.

PACER case 4:23-cv-02340 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11478058B2 — Spa Pedicure Kit Products

Publication No.US11478058B2
Application No.US16/923585
Patent details
ProductSpa pedicure kit products including foot scrubs, skin masks, and body lotions
Cited in actionJune 26, 2023

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11478058B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Voesh Corporation patent enforcement history, Texas Southern case history, Voesh Corporation’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Lanham Act default judgments TXBeauty brand counterfeiting cases§ 1117(c) statutory damages awardsPedicure product IP disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock sector-specific analysis of Lanham Act counterfeiting enforcement trends in the S.D. Texas district court across beauty and personal care IP.
J&K affiliate risk mapS.D. Tex. default judgment trendsLanham Act § 1117(c) benchmarks
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Voesh v J — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.