IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Fisher Investments granted a TRO against investment management firms in trademark infringement case, (May 18, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

The investment group, founded in 1979, won a victory against unknown website owners utilizing a similar web name to advertise a similar entity.

On Friday, a California district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by the investment management firm Fisher Investments (Fisher) against the owners of a pair of similarly named websites on the basis of allegations of trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The websites had similar names, and the court found that Fisher was likely to suffer irreparable harm. So as to expedite the ultimate resolution of the matter, the court further issued an order to show cause why a permanent restraining order should not be issued in favor of the investment group (Fisher Asset Management, LLC v. Fisher-Investments-Europe.org, No. 5:26-cv-04469-PCP (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2026)).

Background. Fisher was founded in 1979 and now manages, with its affiliates, over $387 billion in assets through over 200,000 global clients. Fisher registered marks for “Fisher Investments” both as a standard-character mark and as a service mark. Among its variety of services are services offered in Europe as “Fisher Investments UK” or “Fisher Investments Europe Limited.”

In recent months, unknown persons have established a website “fisher-investments-europe.org,” which presents itself as the official site for “Fisher Investments Europe” in France. Another site, “fisherinvestmentseurope.net,” also purports to be an official site for “Fisher Investments Europe.” Both sites purport to be a business consulting firm involved in wealth management matters. Users are invited to provide their e-mail or some basic information to receive either a newsletter or to establish an account.

Fisher took several steps regarding these matters, submitting an abuse complaint to Dynadot, Inc., the publicly listed registrar for both domain names, which is located in San Mateo, California. Dynadot has refused to disable the domain names or transfer them to Fisher and says it cannot reveal the owners without a subpoena or court order. Fisher also attempted to provide notices of trademark infringement and cybersquatting to the e-mail addresses listed on the website, but the e-mails bounced.

Accordingly, Fisher filed this suit in 2023, seeking relief under both the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and under claims for trademark infringement and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act. Fisher moved for a declaration “that the registration and use of the [allegedly] [i]nfringing [d]omain [n]ames violate Fisher’s rights under the ACPA” and an injunction either transferring the domain names to Fisher or ordering the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain names.

Court ruling. The court granted the motion, finding that Fisher: 1) was likely to succeed on the underlying action on the merits, 2) was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, 3) had the balance of equities in its favor, and 4) had its claim for injunction supported by public interest.

The court ruled that Fisher had established that it owned valid marks, that its complaint sought relief for violation of those marks, that the domain names in question were within the court’s district, and that Fisher, despite due diligence, had been unable to find a viable defendant or find a defendant subject to in personam jurisdiction.

In contemplating irreparable harm, the potential confusion to consumers was noted and discussed. In a balance of equities, Fisher’s clear harm was found to outweigh potential lost profits from an activity shown to be infringing. Finally, the potential for public confusion established a public interest for an injunction.

The registrants, users, owners, operators, or persons in control of the domain names at issue were ordered to suspend the domain names and were enjoined from taking any actions to transfer the domain names from Dynadot to any other registrar, from operating the domain names, or from otherwise using the “Fisher Investments” marks.

Dynadot was further ordered to lock and disable the domain names and prevent transfer or modification except as ordered by the court. Fisher was to serve the order and its initial complaint to all registrants related to the domain names, and the owners of the domain names were ordered to show cause by May 27, 2026, why a permanent injunction should not be issued.

The Case is No. 5:26-cv-04469-PCP.

Judge: Pitts, P.

Attorneys: Nathaniel Edward Haas (Watstein Terepka, LLP) for Fisher Asset Management, LLC.

Companies: Fisher Asset Management, LLC; Fisher-Investments-Europe.Org.

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews