NEW YORK - The International Trademark Association (INTA) has filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court in support of the petition for certiorari in JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. TRX.COM, et al., urging the Court to resolve a growing circuit split over the interpretation of the term “registration” under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), a press release stated by INTA. 

At issue is whether the ACPA applies only to the initial registration of a domain name or also to subsequent registrations made in bad faith. The Ninth Circuit has held that only the first registration qualifies under the ACPA, a position in direct conflict with rulings from the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have all concluded that “registration” includes subsequent registrations.

In its brief, INTA argues that the Ninth Circuit’s narrow reading is contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory text, the ACPA’s legislative intent, and established trademark policy. The Association emphasizes that domain name registrations are not perpetual property interests but limited-term service contracts requiring new agreements and warranties each time a domain name is reregistered. This structure means that subsequent registrations are new transactions that can, and should, be evaluated for bad faith. INTA warns that allowing cybersquatters to evade accountability simply because they were not the original registrants would create dangerous loopholes. Such gaps would undermine the ACPA’s core purpose: protecting trademark owners and consumers from bad-faith exploitation of domain names.

The Association further cautions that the Ninth Circuit ruling fosters forum shopping, encourages cybersquatting in secondary markets, and imposes significant costs and burdens on trademark owners who must defend their rights through more complex, less targeted legal channels. The brief also highlights how the Ninth Circuit’s approach is out of step with established practices under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a key tool in resolving domain disputes globally—adding to the inconsistency and unpredictability facing brand owners.

INTA urges the Supreme Court to take up the case and restore uniformity to federal trademark law by confirming that subsequent registrations of domain names fall within the ACPA’s scope.