Jfxd Trx Acq LLC v. trx.com

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 24-3391
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 4 2025 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JFXD TRX ACQ LLC, a Florida limited No. 24-1661 liability company, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02330-ROS Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TRX.COM, a domain name; LOO TZE MING, an individual from Malaysia,

Defendants - Appellees.

JFXD TRX ACQ LLC, No. 24-3391

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02330-ROS

v.

TRX.COM; LOO TZE MING,

*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 2, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

In these two appeals, Appellant, JFXD TRX ACQ LLC (“JFXD”),

challenges both the dismissal of its complaint for failure to state a claim and the

award of attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to

state a claim. Benavidez v. Cty. Of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir.

2021). We review de novo the district court’s decision concerning the appropriate

choice of law. Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 14 F.4th 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021).

We review an attorneys’ fee award under the Lanham Act for an abuse of

discretion. SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1179,

1181 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

JFXD owns the popular fitness brand TRX and its associated intellectual

property. Appellee, Loo Tze Ming, owns the domain name .

First, JFXD contends that the district court erred by applying Ninth Circuit

law instead of Fourth Circuit law. JFXD filed its complaint under the

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) seeking, in the Eastern

District of Virginia, a determination that it owned . Lacking personal

jurisdiction over Ming, the Virginia district court transferred the case to the District

of Arizona. The Arizona district court applied Ninth Circuit law. On questions of

2 24-1661 federal law, “a transferee court in this circuit is bound only by our circuit’s

precedent.” Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus the

district court correctly applied Ninth Circuit law.

Next, JFXD argues that the district court erred in dismissing its complaint

for failure to state a claim. In GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir.

2011), we held that under the ACPA, “a re-registration of a currently registered

domain name by a new registrant” is not a “registration” of that domain name. Id.

Therefore, JFXD was required to plead that it possessed rights in the mark “TRX”

before the initial registration of . Because it did not do so, its ACPA

claim fails. See id. The district court reasonably rejected JFXD’s Second

Amended Complaint because JFXD had already pleaded facts that made

contradictory allegations in its newest complaint implausible.

Finally, JFXD challenges the award of attorneys’ fees under the Lanham

Act’s provision authorizing fees in “exceptional cases.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this case was

“exceptional.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,

554 (2014). JFXD filed suit in the Virginia district court even though its attorney

knew that Ming was already litigating in Arizona. Further, as the Arizona district

court explained, “JFXD and its counsel were unable to present intelligible factual

or legal arguments, leaving Ming and the [Arizona district court] to guess as to

3 24-1661 why JFXD believed its cybersquatting claim was viable.” Finally, JFXD ignored

court orders, communicated with the court ex parte, and inexplicably shifted its

position multiple times throughout the course of litigation. Because the district

court properly granted Ming attorneys’ fees below, Appellees are entitled to

attorneys’ fees on appeal. See Jason Scott Collection, Inc. v. Trendily Furniture,

68 F.4th 1203, 1224 (9th Cir. 2023).

We AFFIRM the district court in both appeals.

4 24-1661