Jfxd Trx Acq LLC v. trx.com

                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION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,

             Defendants - Appellees.


*

                   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 <trx.com>.

      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 <trx.com>. 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 <trx.com>. 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