A company operating multiple luxury nail salons is seeking legal action to stop three similarly named businesses from using what it alleges are confusingly similar trademarks, arguing that this could mislead customers and harm its reputation. The complaint was filed by Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on April 22, 2026, naming Vinci Nail Spa LLC, Vinci Nail Spa HP LLC, and Vinci Nail Spa HI LLC as defendants.
According to the filing, Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc., an Illinois corporation with its principal office in Chicago, operates at least 32 salons across several states under the name Venetian Nail Spa. The plaintiff asserts ownership of several federally registered trademarks related to its brand, including marks for “M. Vincé Nail Spa,” “M. Vincé,” “ANTHONY VINCE,” and “ANTHONY VINCE NAIL SPA.” These marks are registered for services such as manicures, pedicures, facials, waxing services, eyelash extensions, massage therapy, and other spa treatments.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants—three North Carolina limited liability companies—opened a salon at 403 Pisgah Church Road in Greensboro using the name Vinci Nail Spa. The plaintiff claims that these entities are related or operate together and that their business activities include advertising and offering nail salon services under names and branding that closely resemble those owned by Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc.
Images cited in the complaint show examples from websites and social media accounts allegedly used by the defendants to promote their services under the disputed name. The plaintiff argues that both parties operate in identical industries and target similar customer bases.
The complaint details how Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc. became aware of the alleged infringement on December 4, 2025. It sent a cease-and-desist letter to the defendants on December 19, 2025, followed by another communication on January 15, 2026. According to the filing, no response was received from any defendant.
Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc. contends it never authorized or licensed any of its trademarks or derivatives to the defendants. The suit claims that “Defendants with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s Trademarks have refused Plaintiff’s request to stop using Plaintiff’s Trademarks,” describing their actions as deliberate and willful.
The legal causes outlined include federal trademark infringement under Section 1114 of Title 15 of the United States Code; unfair competition; false designation of origin; passing off under Section 1125(a); trademark dilution under Section 1125(c); common law trademark infringement; deceptive and unfair trade practices under North Carolina law; and unjust enrichment under state common law.
In support of these claims, Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc. alleges that “Defendants’ branding comprises counterfeit, spurious marks which are substantially indistinguishable from Plaintiff’s Trademarks” leading to consumer confusion and loss of goodwill for the plaintiff’s business. The company also asserts that continued use by defendants will cause irreparable damage unless stopped by court order.
The relief sought includes a permanent injunction preventing further use of any mark or design element substantially similar or confusingly close to those owned by Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc., as well as statutory damages or actual damages suffered due to alleged infringement. Additional requests include punitive damages where applicable under federal or state law; reasonable attorneys’ fees; prejudgment interest on monetary awards; disgorgement of profits gained through alleged infringing activity; compensation for past unfair competition; a written report from defendants detailing compliance with any injunction issued; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys representing Anthony Vince Nail Spa Inc. are Gilbert J. Andia Jr., Higgins Benjamin PLLC (Greensboro), Sean Sharp (pro hac vice to be filed), Kennedy Snyder (pro hac vice to be filed) from Atom Law Group (Chicago). The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-00363.
