ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1479981
`Filing date: 11/28/2025
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Proceeding no. 91300632
`Party Plaintiff
`Mehmet Kurt
`Correspondence
`address
`MARK INGBER
`INGBER LAW FIRM
`9315 MOUNTAIN PINE GRV
`BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33473
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: ingber.lawfirm@gmail.com
`Secondary email(s): ingber.law@verizon.net
`9739210080
`Submission Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`Filer's name Mark J. Ingber
`Filer's email ingber.lawfirm@gmail.com
`Signature /Mark J. Ingber/
`Date 11/28/2025
`Attachments Motion to suspend TTAB opposition proceeding due to pending civil lit igation 11
`28 2025.pdf(147944 bytes )
`Exhibit A 2025 09 15 D1 COMPLAINT for TM Infringement Kurt v Helec I mports
`et al w Exhibits.pdf(1226246 bytes )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MEHMET KURT,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`HELEC IMPORTS LLC, D.B.A. MYSTIC
`HOOKAH,
`
`
`Applicant.
` In the Matter of Trademark Application
` Serial No. 98755396
`
` For the Mark:
` COCONOS NATURE OF SMOKE
`
` Published in the Official Gazette on
` July 15. 2025
`
` Opposition No. 91300632
`
`
` OPPOSER’S MOTION TO SUSPEND OPPOSITION PROCEEDING
`
`Opposer, Mehmet Kurt, ("Opposer"), hereby moves for the suspension of the above-
`captioned proceeding pursuant to TBMP §510.02 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a) on consent.
`On July 26, 2025, Opposer filed the above-captioned Notice of Opposition with the
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board") against Applicant, HELOC IMPORTS LLC,
`D.B.A. MYSTIC HOOKAH ("Applicant") regarding COCONOS NATURE OF SMOKE, Serial
`No. 98755396 (the "Challenged Application"), pursuant to Sections 2(d), 13, and 43(c) of the
`Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(d), 1063, and 1125(c) 1 citing Opposer’s
`registered mark COCOUS HIT THE RIGHT SMOKE, 6081960 for: (1) prior use and likelihood
`of confusion, pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
`On July 26, 2025, Opposer filed a federal litigation lawsuit against Applicant and its
`principal Emre Can in the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, 2:25-cv-00286 (the
`"Federal Litigation") regarding (in part) the registrability and use of the mark in the Challenged
`
`1 The correct statute violated is 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Application, asserting the grounds cited in the Notice of Opposition, as well as other grounds,
`including trademark infringement. In light of the now pending Federal Litigation, Opposer submits
`this motion for suspension of this Opposition proceeding pursuant to TBMP § 510.02(a). The filed
`complaint in the Federal Litigation action is attached as Exhibit A.
`I. PENDING FEDERAL LITIGATION BETWEEN OPPOSER AND APPLICANT
`Pursuant to TBMP § 510.02, the TTAB may suspend a proceeding if a pending civil action
`may have a bearing on the instant proceeding. Opposer filed the Federal Litigation against the
`Applicant on September 15, 2025, in connection with inter alia the Challenged Application and
`multiple legal issues presented in the instant matter (priority and likelihood of confusion ) 2. As
`the outcome of the civil action filed by Opposer may have a bearing on this opposition proceeding,
`Opposer respectfully requests that the Board suspend this proceeding. On November 26, 2025 ,
`Applicant’s counsel, Andrew Valbuena, consented to the filing of the Motion to Suspend.
`Opposer will notify the Board in writing when a decision on the merits has been finally
`determined in the civil proceeding, and will also provide the Board with a copy of the decision in
`the civil litigation, pursuant to TBMP § 510.02(b), so that Opposition No. 91300632 may be
`dismissed by the Board, or alternatively, resumed.
`//
`//
`//
`//
`//
`
`2 Opposer contends that the Federal Litigation will be dispositive of the Board case and all disputes between the parties, including
`Opposer’s trademark infringement claims, which this forum cannot decide.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`//
`II. CONCLUSION
`In view of the foregoing, Applicant moves that Opposition No. 91300632 be suspended,
`pending outcome of the civil litigation cited herein.
`
` Dated: November 28, 2025 THE INGBER LAW FIRM
` By: /Mark J. Ingber/
` Mark J. Ingber
` 9315 Mountain Pine Grove
` Boynton Beach, FL 33473
` (973) 921-0080
`
`ingber.lawfirm@gmail.com
` Attorney for Opposer
` Mehmet Kurt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I, Mark J. Ingber, hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Suspend Proceeding has today been
`sent via electronic mail on November 28, 2025, to counsel of record for Applicant HELEC IMPORTS
`LLC, D.B.A. MYSTIC HOOKAH:
`
`
`Darrell L. Sutton
`Andrew Valbuena
`
`SUTTON LAW GROUP LLC
`351 WASHINGTON AVE, SUITE 300
`MARIETTA, GA 30060
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING
`
`I hereby certify that this Motion to Suspend and attachment, is being transmitted to the
`United States Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, via the TTAB’s
`ESTTA procedure on November 28, 2025.
`
`
`Dated: November 28, 2025
`
`
`/Mark J. Ingber/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`GAINESVILLE DIVISION
`MEHMET KURT,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HELEC IMPORTS LLC, d/b/a
`MYSTIC HOOKAH, and
`EMRE CAN, an individual,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION FILE
`
`NO.
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR
`COMPETITION, AND FALSE REPRESENTATION
`Plaintiff, Mehmet Kurt (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel,
`brings this civil action against Defendants Helec Imports LLC d/b/a Mystic Hookah
`and Emre Can, an Individual (collectively “Defendants” or “Helec”), and alleges as
`follows:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1. This is an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition under
`the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and related claims under Georgia statutory
`and common law, arising from Defendants’ unauthorized and unlawful use of a mark
`that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s well-established brand and products.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 1 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`2. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement of profits,
`costs, and attorneys’ fees.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`3. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit for (1) federal trademark infringement, in
`violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114); (2) unfair
`competition, and false representation in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham
`Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); and (3) state law claims, including deceptive trade
`practices and unfair competition, under Georgia law. Plaintiff seeks remedies
`available pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, and 1125(a). This Court has subject
`matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because
`this action arises under the Lanham Act. This Court also has supplemental
`jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under O.C.G.A. §
`9-10-91(1) because they, or at least some of them, upon information and belief,
`transact business within this state, and under O.C.G.A. § 9 -10-91(2) because they
`committed tortious acts within the State of Georgia causing Plaintiff injury in this
`state and elsewhere. Defendants also have sufficient contacts with the State of
`Georgia to satisfy Due Process.
`5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
`Defendants reside and conduct business in this district.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 2 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff
`6. Plaintiff Mehmet Kurt is an individual, residing at 910 Deerfield
`Crossing Dr., Alpharetta (Forsyth County), Georgia 30004.
`Defendants
`7. Defendant Helec Imports LLC, d/b/a Mystic Hookah, is a limited
`liability company organized under Georgia law with its principal place of business
`at 1675 Redi Road, Suite 100, Cumming (Forsyth County), GA 30040.
`8. Defendant Emre Can, is a natural person who, upon information and
`belief, resides at 4715 Waterbrooke Xing, Alpharetta (Forsyth County), GA 30004
`and may be served with process therein or wherever he may be found. Upon
`information and belief, Can operates or assists in the operation of Helec Imports,
`LLC as the owner and Registered Agent.
`9. The Georgia Secretary of State website identif ies Can as the sole
`manager or member of Helec. Accordingly, upon information and belief, Helec is
`in control of, a principle of, and primarily responsible for the actions of Helec.
`10. Plaintiff asserts claims against Can in his individual capacity and also
`in his capacity as a corporate officer of Helec. Upon information and belief, Can in
`his individual capacity assists in and is responsible for the operation of Helec.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 3 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`11. Alternatively, as the sole manager and member of Helec, Can directs,
`controls, ratifies, participates in, or is the moving force behind the sales of infringing
`products bearing Kurt’s trademarks by Helec. Accordingly, Can is personally liable
`for infringing activities carried out by Helec without regard to piercing the corporate
`veil.
`12. Alternatively, upon information and belief, Helec follows so few
`corporate formalities and is so dominated by Can that it is merely an alter ego of
`Can. Accordingly, Kurt is entitled to pierce the corporate veil of Helec and hold Can
`personally liable for the infringing activities of Helec.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`A. Plaintiff’s Trademark and Product Line
`13. Plaintiff Mehmet Kurt is an entrepreneur based in Georgia who
`designs, develops, and markets high-quality smokers’ products, particularly natural
`hookah charcoal, under the COCOUS HIT THE RIGHT SMOKE brand.
`14. Plaintiff owns a federal trademark registration for the mark COCOUS
`HIT THE RIGHT SMOKE® and Design, U.S. Reg. No. 6,081,960, registered on
`June 16, 2020, and first used in commerce on or about January 1 1, 2019 in
`connection with smokers' articles, namely, hookah charcoal (the “Registered
`Mark”). A copy of the Registration Certificate is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 4 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`15. The above Registered Mark is valid, subsisting, and in full force and
`effect.
`16. The registration constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the
`Registered Mark and of the registration of the mark, of Plaintiff’s ownership of the
`Registered Mark, and of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the Registered Mark in
`commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the
`registration.
`17. Plaintiff has continuously and extensively used the Registered Mark in
`U.S. commerce in connection with hookah charcoal and related goods since at least
`as early as January 11, 2019.
`18. Plaintiff has made substantial investments in advertising and
`promoting the goods and services offered under the Registered Mark. The
`Registered Mark has been advertised, promoted, and sold nationwide through major
`hookah distributors and through on -line stores resulting in widespread public
`recognition.
`19. As a result of the foregoing efforts, the Registered Mark has become
`distinctive and is widely recognized in the hookah and smoking accessories market.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 5 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`C. Defendants’ Infringing Conduct
`20. Defendants launched a competing product line in 2025 using the
`infringing mark COCONOS NATURE OF SMOKE, and began promoting similar
`products to Plaintiff in design, function, and visual presentation.
`21. Defendants also filed USPTO Trademark Application No. 98755396
`on September 17, 2024, claiming a first use date of August 1, 2024, despite no actual
`product shipments or sales until at least April 3, 2025.
`22. Defendants’ conduct is likely to cause —and has caused —actual
`confusion among consumers. Online searches for “ COCONOS” hookah routinely
`lead to COCOUS products and branding, further blurring consumer distinction.
`23. Defendants’ actions are deliberate, willful, and taken in bad faith to
`trade off of the goodwill and commercial success of Plaintiff’s Registered Mark
`brand.
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`COUNT I – TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
`24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23 as if set forth
`herein.
`25. Defendants’ unauthorized use in commerce of the mark COCONOS
`NATURE OF SMOKE in connection with nearly identical products is likely to cause
`confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers as to the affiliation, connection,
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 6 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`or association of Defendant s with Plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
`approval of Defendants’ goods by Plaintiff.
`26. Defendants’ conduct constitutes trademark infringement in violation
`of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
`27. Defendants’ infringement has been willful, deliberate, and in bad faith,
`entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages, disgorgement of profits, and recover y of
`attorneys’ fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
`28. There is no adequate remedy at law, and unless Defendant s are
`enjoined from any further use of the COCONOS NATURE OF SMOKE mark or
`any colorable imitation thereof, or any other mark, the use of which is likely to cause
`confusion, or cause mistake, or to deceive in relation to Plaintiff’s Registered Mark,
`Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed.
`29. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm to his
`brand, goodwill, and ability to control the quality and reputation of its goods unless
`Defendants are enjoined.
`COUNT II
` – VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA DECEPTIVE TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq.
`30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23 as if set forth
`herein.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 7 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`31. Under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
`(“GUDTPA”), it is a deceptive trade practice if a person, among other things, in the
`course of that person’s business, vocation, or occupation, passes off goods or
`services as those of another, causes likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as
`to another’s affiliation, connection, association, or certification, falsely represe nts
`that goods or services have a particular sponsorship, approval, status, a ffiliation, or
`connection, or engages in any other conduct that similarly creates a likelihood of
`confusion or misunderstanding.
`32. Defendants’ continued use of the COCONOS NATURE OF SMOKE
`mark has caused, is causing, and will likely continue to cause a likelihood of
`confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or
`certification of the goods and services Defendant s provide, causing a likelihood of
`confusion as to Defendants’ affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff, and
`otherwise damaging the public. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unfair and
`deceptive acts or practices in the course of a business, trade, or commerce in
`violation of O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-370 to 10-1-375.
`33. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause,
`irreparable harm to Plaintiff as a result of such activities, and Plaintiff has suffered
`substantial damages, as well as the continuing loss of goodwill and reputation
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 8 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`established by Plaintiff in the Marks. Plaintiff is likely to continue to be damaged
`by Defendants’ deceptive trade practices as described herein.
`34. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to O.C.G.A. §
`10-1-373(a). In addition, the Court should award costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-
`1-373(b), and should exercise its discretion to award attorney’s fees to Plaintiff
`pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373(b)(2) on the grounds that Defendants’ have
`willfully engaged in the deceptive trade practice described herein knowing it to be
`deceptive.
`COUNT III – VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA UNFAIR
`COMPETITION STATUTE, O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55
`35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23 as if set forth
`herein.
`36. By their unauthorized and unlawful use of the COCONOS NATURE
`OF SMOKE mark, Defendants have attempted to encroach upon the business of
`Plaintiff by the use of similar trademarks, names, or devices, with the intention of
`deceiving and misleading the public.
`37. Defendants intended to deceive and mislead the general consuming
`public when they sold the infringing goods, and they knew that Plaintiff had long
`established prior rights in the Registered Mark.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 9 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`38. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the COCONOS NATURE OF
`SMOKE mark falsely tends to induce buyers to believe that they are purchasing
`goods and services from Plaintiff or one of his affiliates or authorized distributors
`and unfairly allows Defendants to arrogate for itself Plaintiff’s goodwill and rights
`in the Registered Mark, which is likely to confuse, deceive, and injure the public.
`39. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, irreparably damaged by
`Defendants’ actions, and he has no adequate remedy at law.
`40. Unless this Court enjoins Defendants ’ use of the COCONOS
`NATURE OF SMOKE m ark which is in violation of O.C.G.A. § 23 -2-55,
`Defendants’ unlawful actions will continue to injure the public and cause Plaintiff
`irreparable injury.
`41. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and is likely to continue causing,
`substantial injury to the public and to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
`injunctive relief and to recover Defendants ’ profits, actual damages, enhanced
`profits and damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ f ees under
`Georgia law.
`COUNT IV - COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND
`UNFAIR COMPETITION (Georgia Common Law)
`42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23 as if set forth
`herein.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 10 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`43. Plaintiff has common law rights in the Registered Mark in Georgia,
`where Plaintiff does business.
`44. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the COCONOS NATURE OF
`SMOKE mark has caused and is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception
`as to the affiliation, connection, or association with, or sponsorship, endorsement, or
`approval by Plaintiff.
`45. Long before Defendants’ use of the infringing COCONOS NATURE
`OF SMOKE mark, Plaintiff established strong common law rights in his Registered
`Mark through continuous use and commercial success.
`46. Defendants have acted, and continue to act, willfully, deliberately,
`with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s use of and common law rights to the Registered
`Mark, and without regard to the likelihood of confusion of the public created by
`Defendants’ actions.
`47. Defendants’ actions were undertaken in bad faith and with knowledge
`of Plaintiff’s rights, and have caused confusion and deception among customers,
`harming Plaintiff’s reputation and sales.
`48. Defendants’ use of the COCONOS NATURE OF SMOKE mark
`constitutes common law trademark infringement and unfair competition under
`Georgia law.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 11 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`49. Defendants’ unlawful and willful use has resulted in Defendants’ profit
`and Plaintiff’s damage.
`50. Unless and until Defendants are enjoined from their unlawful conduct,
`Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which he has no adequate
`remedy at law.
`51. Defendants’ conduct has caused, and is likely to continue causing,
`substantial injury to the public and to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
`injunctive relief and to recover Defendants’ profits, actual damages, enhanced
`profits and damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ f ees under
`Georgia law.
`V. NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT OF LITIGATION HOLD
`52. Defendants are hereby notified that they are legally obligated to locate,
`preserve, and maintain all records, notes, drawings, documents, data,
`communications, materials, electronic recordings, audio/video/photographic
`recordings, and digital files, including edited and unedited or “raw” source material,
`and other information and tangible things that Defendant s know, or reasonably
`should know, may be relevant to the actual or potential claims, counterclaims,
`defenses, and/or damages by any party or potenti al party in this lawsuit, whether
`created or residing in hard copy form or in the form of electronically stored
`information (hereafter, “Potential Evidence”). As used above, the phrase
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 12 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`“electronically stored information” includes, without limitation: computer files (and
`file fragments), e -mail (both sent and received, whether internally or externally),
`information concerning e-mail (including but not limited to logs of e - mail history
`and usage, header information, and deleted but recoverable e -mails), text files
`(including drafts, revisions, and active or deleted word processing documents),
`instant messages, audio recordings and files, video footage and files, audio f iles,
`photographic footage and files, spreadsheets, databases, calendars, telephone logs,
`contact manager information, internet usage files, and all other information created,
`received, or maintained on any and all electronic and/or digital forms, sources and
`media, including , without limitation, any and all hard disks, removable media,
`peripheral computer or electronic storage devices, laptop computers, mobile phones,
`personal data assistant devices, Blackberry devices, iPhones, video cameras and still
`cameras, cloud storage, and any and all other locations where electronic data is
`stored. These sources may also include any personal electronic, digital, and storage
`devices of Defendants’ agents, resellers, or employees, if Defendants’ electronically
`stored information resides there.
`53. Defendants are hereby further notified and forewarned that any
`alteration, destruction, negligent loss, or unavailability, by act or omission, of an y
`Potential Evidence, including the destruction or concealment of the infringing
`without the Court’s express permission, may result in damages or a legal
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 13 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`presumption by the Court and/or jury that the Potential Evidence is not favorable to
`Defendants’ claims and/or defenses. To avoid such a result, Defendants ’
`preservation duties include, but are not limited to, the requirement that Defendant s
`immediately notify their agents and employees to halt and/or supervise the auto -
`delete functions of Defendants ’ electronic systems and refrain from deleting
`Potential Evidence, either manually or through a policy of periodic deletion.
`VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
`in his favor and against Defendants and grant relief as follows:
`i. Judgment that Defendants have committed trademark infringement;
`ii. Judgment that Defendants are liable for unfair competition;
`iii. Judgment that Defendants are liable for violations of the Deceptive
`Trade Practices Act, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under Georgia
`law;
`iv. An accounting;
`v. All actual , treble, and exemplary damages suffered by Plaintiff,
`including lost sales and profits, and any other damages permitted under the Lanham
`Act and/or Georgia law;
`vi. Disgorgement of all Defendants’ profits related to the infringement;
`vii. Permanently enjoin Defendants from using the COCONOS
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 14 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`NATURE OF SMOKE mark or any confusingly similar mark;
`viii. Deny registration of Defendants’ pending USPTO Application No.
`98755396;
`ix. Order Defendant s to withdraw any false statements made to the
`USPTO;
`x. Award Plaintiff damages, including corrective advertising and actual
`damages, in an amount to be proven at trial;
`xi. Award treble damages and profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
`xii. Award Plaintiff his attorneys’ fees and costs; and g rant any such
`further relief the Court deems just and proper.
`VII. JURY DEMAND
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff demands a trial by
`jury on all issues so triable.
`
`DATED: September 15, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Daniel A. Kent
`Daniel A. Kent
`Georgia Bar No. 415110
`dankent@kentrisley.com
`KENT & RISLEY LLC
`5755 N Point Pkwy Ste 57
`Alpharetta, GA 30022
`Tel: (404) 585-4214
`Fax: (404) 829-2412
`
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 15 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Mark J. Ingber
`(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`ingber.lawfirm@gmail.com
`The Ingber Law Firm
`9315 Mountain Pine Grove
`Boynton Beach, Florida 33473
`Tel: (973) 921-0080
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 16 of 16
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 6,081,960
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 1 of 3
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 6,081,960
`Registered Jun. 16, 2020
`Int. Cl.: 34
`Trademark
`Principal Register
`Kurt, Mehmet  (TURKEY INDIVIDUAL)
`Apt 9203
`910 Deerfield Crossing Dr
`Alpharetta, GEORGIA 30004
`CLASS 34: Smokers' articles, namely, hookah charcoal
`FIRST USE 1-9-2019; IN COMMERCE 1-11-2019
`The color(s) black, brown, white, gray, yellow, orange and dark orange is/are claimed as a
`feature of the mark.
`The mark consists of a flame with varying shades of the burning colors dark orange, brown,
`orange and yellow, and an oval-shaped gray shadow underneath the flame. Below the design
`is the wording "COCOUS" with a half coconut design forming both letter "O"s. The coconuts
`have a brown outside husk and white flesh inside. The letters "C", "C" and "US" are shown in
`black and white shading to look like charcoal writing. Underneath that is the black wording
`"HIT THE RIGHT SMOKE". All other white represents transparent background and is not
`claimed as a feature of the mark.
`The wording "COCOUS" has no meaning in a foreign language.
`SER. NO. 88-617,230, FILED 09-15-2019
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 2 of 3
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 6081960
`REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
`WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE
`DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
`Requirements in the First Ten  Years*
`What and When to File:
`First Filing Deadline:  You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
`years after the registration date.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k.  If the declaration is accepted, the
`registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
`date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
`Second Filing Deadline:  You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
`for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
`Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*
`What and When to File:
`You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse)  and  an  Application for Renewal
`between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
`Grace Period Filings*
`The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with
`the payment of an additional fee.
`*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS:  The holder of an international registration with an
`extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use
`(or Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
`The time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date).  The
`deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for
`nationally issued registrations.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k.  However, owners of international registrations
`do not file renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying
`international registration at the International Bureau of the  World Intellectual Property Organization, under
`Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the
`date of the international registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1141j.  For more information and renewal forms for the
`international registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
`NOTE:  Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change.  Please check the
`USPTO website for further information.  With the exception of renewal applications for registered
`extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at h
`ttp://www.uspto.gov.
`NOTE:  A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
`owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
`USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
`Electronic  Application System (TEAS) Correspondence  Address and Change of Owner  Address Forms
`available at http://www.uspto.gov.
`Case 2:25-cv-00286-RWS Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 3 of 3
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JS44 (Rev.  NDGA) CIVIL COVER SHEET
`The JS44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by
`local rules of court. This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket record. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED)
`I. (a) PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)
`(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED
`PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND
`INVOLVED
`(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
`E-MAIL ADDRESS)
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
`(PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX ONLY) (PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)
`(FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
` PLF DEF PLF DEF
` 1 U.S. GOVERNMENT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION 1 1 CITIZEN OF THIS STATE 4 4 INCORPORATED OR PRINCIPAL
` PLAINTIFF (U.S. GOVERNMENT NOT A PARTY) PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
` 2 U.S. GOVERNMENT 4 DIVERSITY 2 2 CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE 5 5 INCORPORATED AND PRINCIPAL
` DEFENDANT (INDICATE CITIZENSHIP OF PARTIES PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
`IN ITEM III)
`3 3 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A 6 6 FOREIGN NATION
`FOREIGN COUNTRY
`IV. ORIGIN (PLACE AN “X “IN ONE BOX ONLY)
`TRANSFERRED FROM MULTIDISTRICT APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE
` 1 ORIGINAL 2 REMOVED FROM 3 REMANDED FROM 4 REINSTATED OR 5 ANOTHER DISTRICT 6 LITIGATION - 7 FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`PROCEEDING STATE COURT APPELLATE COURT REOPENED (Specify District) TRANSFER JUDGMENT
`MULTIDISTRICT
` 8 LITIGATION -
`DIRECT FILE
`V. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE - DO NOT CITE
`JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)
`1. Unusually large number of parties. 6. Problems locating or preserving evidence
`2. Unusually large number of claims or defenses. 7. Pending parallel investigations or actions by government.
`3. Factual issues are exc