The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the trx.com domain name squatting case

On December 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal in the trx.com domain name squatting dispute. It is understood that if the Supreme Court had accepted the case, it would have had a significant impact on the application of the Anti-Domain Squatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). This rejection signifies that the disagreements among the circuit courts regarding the determination of domain name registration dates remain unresolved.

The case dates back to 2022: In April of that year, Lu Ziming purchased the trx.com domain for $138,000; in October of the same year, Fitness Anywhere LLC, then under bankruptcy protection, filed a domain squatting lawsuit based on the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). The following month, a panel ruled in favor of Lu, but he did not respond to the dispute notification. The company then filed a lawsuit in Arizona to block the domain transfer, but the case was later shelved due to its own bankruptcy.

Subsequently, JFXD TRX ACQ LLC, claiming to be the predecessor of Fitness Anywhere's interests, filed a property rights lawsuit for the domain in Virginia (where the .com registry is located). It is believed that this move may be a "site selection lawsuit," intended to avoid the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona falls under its jurisdiction) which applies the "original registration date" rule—that court rules that the domain registration date is based on the original registration, not the current owner's acquisition date, while other circuit courts treat changes in registrant as new registrations.

Ultimately, the court transferred the case to Arizona, referencing the original 1999 registration date of the trx.com domain (predating the founding of JFXD TRX), and ruled in favor of Lu Ziming, ordering JFXD TRX to pay approximately $40,000 in legal fees. JFXD TRX's appeal was dismissed, and it was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which also refused to hear the case.

It is noteworthy that the International Trademark Association (INTA) had hoped the court would use this case to resolve the judicial disagreement regarding the determination of domain name "registration dates," but the Supreme Court's decision leaves this core dispute unresolved. Furthermore, information suggests that Fitness Anywhere's initial UDRP application may have been based on false grounds, and that it had already sold the relevant trademarks before filing the application.

This case has certain implications for the domain name trading industry, especially reminding domain name buyers to pay attention to the rules governing the determination of registration dates in different jurisdictions to avoid potential legal risks.