Tchutima, Inc. v. Bua Group, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-6745
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TCHUTIMA, INC., doing business as Lotus No. 24-6745 of Siam; SAIPIN CHUTIMA, D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCM-NJK Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. MEMORANDUM*

BUA GROUP, LLC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2025** Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: BENNETT, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Bua Group, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of a preliminary

injunction in favor of TChutima, Inc. and Saipin Chutima (collectively,

“TChutima”) in this trademark-infringement case. We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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). U.S.C. § 1292(a). We reverse and remand this case for the entry of further findings

of fact and conclusions of law.

In granting a preliminary injunction, a district court “must find the facts

specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1). “We

may . . . remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law where a district

court’s findings and conclusions supporting the preliminary injunction are not

sufficient to permit meaningful review.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Enforma Nat.

Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, the district court found that TChutima held a valid registered

trademark and stated, without citation to the record, that “[t]here is sufficient

evidence in the record to show reasonable public confusion may arise,” but made

no other factual findings in support of its issuance of a preliminary injunction in

TChutima’s favor. Because we cannot meaningfully review the district court’s

order, we REVERSE this case and REMAND it to the district court for

“additional and more detailed findings and conclusions.” Id.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 24-6745