BTQ Technologies Corporation et al v. Namecheap Incorporated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
BTQ Technologies Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Namecheap Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-02485-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs BTQ Technologies Corp. and BTQ AG’s
(“Plaintiffs” or “BTQ”) Application for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), (Doc. 2),
the Court finds that Plaintiffs have raised “serious questions going to the merits” of their
claims and that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in [Plaintiffs’] favor.” All. for the
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–35 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs have also
demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm and that a TRO is in the public interest. See
id. The TRO application will therefore be granted in part as outlined below.
The Court further finds that Third Party Nicolas Roussy Newton is not a required
party under Rule 19(a) because joinder of Roussy Newton would divest the court of subject
matter jurisdiction for lack of diversity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) (defining a required party as
one “who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of
subject-matter jurisdiction”). If Roussy Newton believes he has an interest in this
litigation, he may move to intervene under Rule 24. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
///
Case 2:26-cv-02485-SHD Document 17 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Application for a TRO (Doc. 2) is GRANTED IN
PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
(a) Defendant Namecheap, Inc. (“Namecheap”) shall immediately restore the
domains <btq.com> and <qcim.com> to their last known operational status quo;
(b) Namecheap shall immediately cease permitting Nicolas Roussy Newton, to
access or in any way exercise control over the domains <btq.com> and
<qcim.com>;
(c) Namecheap shall not transfer the Registrant Account to Plaintiffs without further
order from this Court;
(d) Within 24 hours of the entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a status report
informing the Court whether it believes that Namecheap has complied with the
terms of this Order; and
(e) Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order to Roussy Newton within 48 hours
of the entry of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on the pending Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. 2), on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in
Courtroom 502, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall post a nominal bond of one
hundred dollars ($100.00) for the domain names at issue because even if Namecheap
ultimately prevails, the evidence indicates that Namecheap would potentially suffer only
minimal, if any, damage by the issuance of this temporary restraining order. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(d).
///
///
///
///
Case 2:26-cv-02485-SHD Document 17 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that absent further order from the Court, the TRO
shall remain in place through Wednesday, May 6, 2026.1
Dated this 14th day of April, 2026.
1 “When a TRO is issued with notice and after a hearing . . . the 14-day limit for TROs
issued without notice does not apply.” See Miller v. Heimuller, 2023 WL 2474345, at *2
n.1 (D. Or. 2023). “Nevertheless, absent consent of the parties, a court may not extend a
TRO indefinitely, even upon notice and a hearing.” Id. (citation modified). Thus, courts
should schedule a preliminary injunction hearing no later than 28 days after the date that
the court first issues a noticed TRO. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).
Case 2:26-cv-02485-SHD Document 17 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 3