IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: Supreme Court declines to hear cybersquatting dispute involving re-registration, (Dec 16, 2025)

By Deirdre Kennedy, J.D.

A split among the circuits over the issue of whether federal cybersquatting legislation regulates only the initial registration of a domain name or the subsequent re-registration by different owners remains unresolved.

In its order list released on December 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the company that owns TRX, the well-known brand of exercise training equipment, which argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit got it wrong when it held that federal cybersquatting legislation regulated only the initial registration of domain names and not their subsequent re-registration by different owners. The petition asked the Supreme Court to resolve a split among courts of appeals and to reverse a ruling that allegedly “puts swaths of egregious cybersquatting behavior” out of the law’s reach (JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Ming, Dkt. No. 25-188 (U.S. cert. denied Dec. 15, 2025)).

The case was brought by the company that owns TRX, the well-known brand of exercise training equipment. Former Navy Seal Randy Hetrick founded the company in 2004 but sold a controlling interest in the company in 2019. Three years later, after the company went under, Hetrick teamed up with a private equity firm to purchase it out of bankruptcy. But there was a problem: in the intervening time, an Arizona resident named Loo Yze Ming had bought up the domain name trx.com and was marketing it to the highest bidder.

The new owners of TRX filed a suit against Ming in a federal court in Virginia. The complaint asserted that Ming bought the domain name in bad faith, in violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), in order to profit from the exercise equipment company’s good name. The company demanded statutory damages of $100,000 and an order transferring the trx.com domain name to the company.

With personal jurisdiction over Ming lacking in Virginia, the lawsuit was transferred to the District of Arizona. But this created another problem for the exercise company. The ACPA bars the bad faith “registration” of domain names, but under Ninth Circuit authority, only the initial registration of domain names is subject to the cybersquatting law. And because Ming was not the first to register the name—a now-defunct technology company got to it first, in 1999—he could not be touched by the law. The district court, bound by circuit precedent, dismissed the claim (and awarded attorney fees to boot), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Petition to Supreme Court. The exercise company’s petition rested on two arguments. First, that Ninth Circuit precedent was out of line with the decisions of other courts. In the Third, Fourth, or Eleventh Circuits, the petition argued, the claim would be viable. “Those courts of appeals have each rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis,” the petition argued, “and have held that the ACPA treats re-registrations of domain names no differently from initial registrations.” This circuit split, the petition asserted, “will persist unless resolved by this Court—leading to uncertainty nationwide over the scope of digital trademark rights.”

The Ninth Circuit’s “outlier” position, the petition asserted, is also simply wrong. The statutory question, the petition asserted, was whether such “re-registration” is also “registration.” Dictionary definitions and common sense, the petition argued, say that it is. “That a ‘re-registration’ is a ‘registration’ all the same is consistent with how ‘re-XX’ words work throughout the English language,” the petition argued. “A ‘remarriage’ is no less a ‘marriage’ just because one of the participants was previously married. Similarly, one who ‘repaints’ his house also ‘paints’ it. The Ninth Circuit’s decision, therefore, “is not just on an island—it is wrong,” the petition claimed.

The question presented by the petition was, “Whether registration of a domain name for purposes of the ACPA includes re-registrations, or if it is instead limited to the initial registration.”

The Case is Dkt. No. 25-188.

Attorneys: Adam G. Unikowsky (Jenner & Block LLP) for JFXD TRX ACQ LLC. Paul W. Hughes (McDermott Will & Schulte LLP) for trx.com and Loo Yze Ming.

Companies: JFXD TRX ACQ LLC; trx.com

News: Trademark TechnologyInternet AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews