IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Haw.: Preliminary injunction granted in dispute over ‘GOJUMP’ mark and domain name, (Jan 2, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Plaintiffs’ federally registered GOJUMP mark and prior commercial use established priority, a likelihood of success on the merits, and a risk of irreparable harm.

The federal district court in Honolulu, Hawaii, denied a motion to dismiss and granted a preliminary injunction in a trademark and cybersquatting lawsuit brought by GoJump America, LLC, against Skydiving School, Inc. and its owner, Frank M. Hinshaw. The court held that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded ownership and priority of use in the federally registered GOJUMP mark and showed a likelihood of success on the merits, thereby entitling them to injunctive relief. The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of validity afforded by the plaintiffs' federal registration and could not establish prior use or a natural zone of expansion (GoJump America, LLC v. Skydiving School, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00146-SASP-WRP (D. Haw. Dec. 31, 2025)).

Background. Plaintiffs GoJump America, LLC (a Nevada entity) and GoJump Hawaii, LLC (a Hawaii entity) are part of the GoJump group, which has operated skydiving centers in high-traffic U.S. locations since 2015. The companies promote their services under the GOJUMP name across digital platforms, have amassed tens of thousands of followers, and have received significant press coverage. Defendants Skydiving School, Inc. (SSI), Hinshaw IT, LLC, and their principal, Frank M. Hinshaw, operate competing businesses in Hawaii. The parties previously litigated against each other in a 2023 trademark dispute, which GoJump won, resulting in a dismissal and an award of attorney fees.

GoJump owns the U.S. Federal Service Mark Registration No. ‘458, covering “[r]ecreational services in the nature of professional tandem sky diving; tandem sky diving from planes and helicopters; [and] professional sky diving instruction services.” The registered mark includes a circular design featuring a winged horizon above the word “GOJUMP.” Plaintiffs claim both statutory and common law rights in the GOJUMP family of marks, including “GoJump America” and “GoJump Hawaii,” used continuously since 2015.

In or around 2023, SSI acquired the domain name “gojump.com” from a defunct amusement park business in Texas. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants began using the domain, as well as the marks “GOJUMP,” “GOJUMP.COM,” and similar variants, to promote and sell skydiving services that directly competed with GoJump’s offerings. Plaintiffs also claimed that Hinshaw IT filed two trademark applications for “GOJUMP.COM,” falsely declaring no conflicting rights existed. In March 2025, Hinshaw IT filed a petition to cancel GoJump’s ‘458 registration with the USPTO.

GoJump filed the instant suit on April 4, 2025, asserting eight claims, including federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, unfair competition, counterfeiting, cybersquatting under § 1125(d), and claims under Hawaii’s deceptive trade practices statutes. The same day, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop defendants’ use of the “gojump.com” domain and related marks. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs failed to establish priority in the mark and that Hinshaw could not be held personally liable.

Trademark validity and priority. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Complaint failed to allege priority. Citing Rearden LLC v. Rearden Com., Inc., 683 F.3d 1190, 1202–03 (9th Cir. 2012), the court held that GoJump’s federal registration created a rebuttable presumption of validity and ownership. GoJump had adequately alleged use of “GOJUMP” in commerce since 2015, thus establishing prior rights over the defendants’ use beginning in 2023.

SSI argued that it was the senior user by virtue of the domain’s earlier use by the prior owner. However, the court found that this historical use, associated with a gravity-based amusement park in Texas, was unrelated to skydiving and lacked any nexus with the Hawaiian market. Applying the “natural zone of expansion” doctrine narrowly, the court held the doctrine inapplicable as defendants had not established commercial use in the relevant market.

Personal liability of the individual defendant. The court declined to dismiss Hinshaw in his personal capacity. Citing Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1021 (9th Cir. 1985), the court emphasized that a corporate officer may be personally liable where he is a “moving, active conscious force” behind the infringing acts. Plaintiffs had alleged that Hinshaw orchestrated the acquisition of the domain, authorized the infringing conduct, and directed fraudulent filings with the USPTO. The court found these factual allegations sufficient under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), to survive dismissal.

Likelihood of success and irreparable harm. In granting injunctive relief, the court found GoJump likely to succeed on its claim that the defendants’ use of “GOJUMP” created confusion. Under Brookfield Communications, 174 F.3d at 1046, and KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596, 604 (9th Cir. 2005), the court reiterated that a stylized mark registration also protects the salient word component—here, “GOJUMP.” The court further held that the defendants’ recent use could not overcome GoJump’s presumptive ownership under the Lanham Act. Additionally, irreparable harm was presumed under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) and, alternatively, established by evidence of actual consumer confusion and loss of goodwill.

Equities and public interest. Referencing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), the court emphasized that equitable relief requires a balancing of hardships and consideration of the public interest. The balance of equities, it found, favored GoJump, whose decade-long reputation and goodwill risked significant harm if defendants continued using the contested marks and domain. By contrast, defendants had only recently entered the skydiving market under the disputed branding. Moreover, drawing from Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011), the court reasoned that preserving consumer clarity in the marketplace supported a finding that the public interest would be served by enjoining defendants’ infringing activities.

Conclusion. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted GoJump’s motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants were enjoined from using the “gojump.com” domain or any similar designation in connection with skydiving services. The court set bond in the nominal amount of $1,000 due to the defendants’ failure to show actual investment or damages.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00146-SASP-WRP.

Judge: Park, S.

Attorneys: Clint K. Hamada (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert) and John M. Houkom (Lewis Kohn Walker, LLP) for GoJump America, LLC and GoJump Hawaii LLC. Douglas S.G. Chin (Starn O'Toole Marcus Fisher) for Skydiving School, Inc. and Hinshaw IT.

Companies: GoJump America, LLC; GoJump Hawaii LLC; Skydiving School, Inc.; Hinshaw IT

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet HawaiiNews GCNNews