Tchutima, Inc. v. Bua Group, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TCHUTIMA, INC., doing business as Lotus No. 24-6745 of Siam; SAIPIN CHUTIMA, D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCM-NJK Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. MEMORANDUM* BUA GROUP, LLC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 9, 2025** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: BENNETT, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Bua Group, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of TChutima, Inc. and Saipin Chutima (collectively, “TChutima”) in this trademark-infringement case. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1292(a). We reverse and remand this case for the entry of further findings of fact and conclusions of law. In granting a preliminary injunction, a district court “must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1). “We may . . . remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law where a district court’s findings and conclusions supporting the preliminary injunction are not sufficient to permit meaningful review.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Enforma Nat. Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the district court found that TChutima held a valid registered trademark and stated, without citation to the record, that “[t]here is sufficient evidence in the record to show reasonable public confusion may arise,” but made no other factual findings in support of its issuance of a preliminary injunction in TChutima’s favor. Because we cannot meaningfully review the district court’s order, we REVERSE this case and REMAND it to the district court for “additional and more detailed findings and conclusions.” Id. REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 24-6745