N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B M W OF NOR TH AM ER IC A, LLC ; B AYER ISC HE M O TOREN W ERKE AG, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s, v. VIC TOR B ARR EIR

A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, And M INI W ORKS, LLC ; POLE POSITION PAR TNER S GR O UP, LLC ; POLE POSITION USA, LLC ; LINDA SHAR AB Y, De fe nda

nts. No. 14-15215 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-01936-SM M M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Se n i or Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED D EC 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d De c e m be r 11, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s a nd C HEN, * ** Distric t Judge . The fa c ts a

re known to the

pa rtie s, a nd we re pe at the m

he re only a s ne c e ssa ry to e xpla in our de c ision. Appe lla nt Vic t or B arre ira

a ppe a ls on two grounds: First, he argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt inc o rre c tly

de te rm ine d tha

t he wa s in viola

t ion of its 2010 orde

r e njoining him

from spe c i fic use s of Appe lle e s’ (c o lle c tive ly “ B M W ” ) “ M INI” tra de m a rks; a nd se c ond, he argue s tha

t the distric t

c ourt im prope rly m odifie d its injunc tion by

forc ing him

to turn ove r c ontrol of the< m iniworks.c o m > dom a in nam e to B M W . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd for the re a sons outline d be low, we a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t B arre i ra wa s in viola

tion of its 2010 injunc tion wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. Se e AC

F Indus. Inc . v . C

al. State Bd. of Equalization , 42 F.3d 1286, 1289 (9th C ir. 1994). De spite the injunc tion’ s c le ar prohibition, B arre ira c o n tinue d to fe ature B M W ’ s “ M INI” m ark on his < m i niworks.c o m > we bsite , a nd c ontinue d to a c c e pt onlineorde rs for “ M ini

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.W orks” -brande d a ppa re l . B arre ira

re sponds tha

t he did not a c tua lly c omple teany sa le s of the e njoine d

m e rc ha n dise . B ut e ve n a

n offe r to se ll goods with a n infringing tra d e m ark e sta

blishe s lia bility unde r the La

nham Ac t. S e e 15 U.S.C . § 1114(1)(a ); se e also Le v i Strauss & C o. v . Shilon , 121 F.3d 1309, 1312 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ The [Lanha

m A c t] doe s not re quire tha t the de fe nda

n t . . . m ake an a c tua l sa le . An offe r to se ll without m ore will suffic e to e sta

blish lia bility .” ). B arre ira ’ s a sse rtion tha

t he owns a

Fre nc h tra de m ark re gistra tion for B M W ’ s m arks doe s not e xc u se c om plia nc e with thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r e njoining the ir use on a Unite d State s -hoste d we bsite . Se e G rupo Gigante SA DeC V v . Dallo & C o., Inc . , 391 F.3d 1088, 1097–98 (9th C ir. 2004). Additiona lly , a ssum ing without de c iding tha

t B arre ira ’ s “ re ve rse dom a in na m e hija c king” c la im

is va lid in the Ninth C irc uit, 1 it fa ils be c a use he c annot show tha

t his “re gistra

tion or useof the dom a in na

m e is not unla

wful unde r the La

nha m Ac t.” H

aw e s v . N e tw ork Solutions, Inc . , 337 F.3d 377, 383–85 (4th C i r. 2003) (quota tion m a rks om itte d). 2. The distric t c ourt’ s m odific ation of its 2010 injunc tion wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. S

e e AC F Indus. Inc . , 42 F.3d a

t 1289. A distric t c ourt is a uthoriz e d to m odify an injunc t i on in c onside ra t ion of ne w fa c ts, se e A & M Re c ords v . N apste r, Inc . , 284 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd c ourts a

re spe c ific a lly

1 This C o urt ha s ne v e r pa sse d on the e x iste nc e of a “ re ve rse dom a in na

m e hija c king” c la im unde r the Antic y be rsquatting C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t , a nd we ne e d not do so here .e m

powe re d to “ orde r . . . the tra nsfe r of [a ] dom a in na

m e to the owne r of the m ark,” 15 U.S.C . 1125(d)(1)(C ). In light of B arre ira ’ s c ontinue d non-c om plia nc e with the2010 injunc tion, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

orde ring B arre i ra to tra

nsfe r owne rship of the< m iniworks.c om > dom a i n na m e to B M W . 2 AFFIRM E D.

2 B arre ira 's a s se rtion tha

t the distric t c ourt c ould not order transfe r of the we bsite be c a

use it wa s re giste re d to M iniW orks, LDA (a Portugue s e c om

pa ny ) and his fa the r, ne i the r of whom is a pa rty to this litiga

tion, la c ks m e rit. The distric t c ourt found B arre ira

ha d c ontrol ove r the we b site , a fa c t prove n by

his a bility to e ffe c t tra n sfe r of the we bsite . M ore ove r, ne ithe r M iniW orks, LDA nor B arre ira 's fa the r m a de any

atte m p t to inte rve ne and pre v e n t the tra nsfe r de spite the ir knowle dge of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r.