NASSAU, BAHAMAS- A U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida has granted in part and denied in part a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Conch & Coconut, LLC and Pink Sand Spirits Co., finding that the plaintiffs succeeded on claims related to the alleged misuse of customer and booking information but failed to establish a likelihood of success on claims tied to the ownership and enforcement of branding and marks in a commercial dispute involving a luxury concierge business operating between the United States and The Bahamas.
In an order signed December 22, 2025, Judge Kathleen M. Williams ruled that limited injunctive relief was warranted to prevent the defendants from soliciting customers or using booking information that originated with the plaintiffs, while declining to enjoin conduct related to the use of the Conch & Coconut name and branding.
The dispute arises from a business relationship that began in 2018. According to the court’s order, Conch & Coconut, LLC was founded by Pablo Conde to provide concierge and destination management services to U.S.-based travelers visiting Harbour Island. The LLC marketed its services and booked customers through its website, while Conch & Coconut Limited, operated by Julian Shaquille Gibson, provided concierge services in The Bahamas. The parties operated for several years without a written agreement, under which the LLC booked customers and funded asset purchases, and CCL delivered on-the-ground services using the LLC’s assets and branding.
In October 2023, the parties entered into a Consulting and Lease with Option to Buy Agreement. The court described the agreement as sparse and lacking many provisions typically found in commercial contracts. The agreement contemplated the eventual sale of the LLC’s business to CCL over a 10-year period, authorized CCL to operate the business autonomously, and provided that intellectual property would be fully licensed and transferred upon satisfaction of the lease and buyout terms. Defendant Gibson signed the agreement on behalf of CCL, and payments were made until April 2025.
The relationship deteriorated in May 2025. On May 16, defendants Gibson and Scott Silverman informed the LLC that CCL would be closing operations, citing unpaid Bahamian taxes. On the same day, plaintiffs allege that defendant Letamae Johnson edited existing bookings by canceling reservations or reducing prices to match deposit amounts. The court’s order further states that on May 19 and May 21, defendants Johnson and Gibson downloaded customer and booking data from the LLC’s online platforms, including FareHarbor and HubSpot. Plaintiffs allege that defendants continued operating a concierge business using this information.
After efforts to resolve the dispute failed, plaintiffs filed suit on September 5, 2025, and moved for a preliminary injunction on September 18, 2025. The court heard oral arguments on October 31, 2025, and accepted closing submissions on November 18, 2025.
In evaluating the motion, the court applied the four-factor test governing preliminary injunctions. On the likelihood of success on the merits, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a viable claim related to trademark infringement. The court found that plaintiffs permitted the use of the Conch & Coconut marks without supervision or quality control, constituting a naked license and abandonment of trademark rights under Eleventh Circuit precedent. As a result, the court declined to grant injunctive relief related to branding or marks.
The court reached a different conclusion with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims concerning the alleged misuse of customer and booking information. The court found that the information at issue qualified as confidential business information and that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on those claims. The court rejected defendants’ arguments that they owned the customer data, finding that plaintiffs controlled customer acquisition and maintained the systems in which the information originated. The court further found that defendants accessed and downloaded the information using credentials provided for limited business purposes and subsequently used the data in connection with a competing business.
The court found that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, citing the loss of customers and goodwill. In balancing the equities, the court determined that narrowly tailored relief focused on preventing the use of plaintiffs’ customer information would not impose undue hardship on the defendants. The court also found that the public interest favors the protection of confidential business information.
Based on these findings, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction in part. The court ordered that defendants, and those acting in concert with them, are prohibited from soliciting bookings from any consumer whose information originated and was maintained by the plaintiffs, and from using any such booking information for any business purpose. The court required the plaintiffs to post a $10,000 bond.
The matter remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
