IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Fisher Investments obtains preliminary injunction against the registrants of copycat domain names, (Jun 3, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The district court found that the investment management firm satisfied each of the four Winter factors and demonstrated sufficient notice to adverse parties.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted an investment management firm’s motion for preliminary injunction in its trademark infringement and cybersquatting lawsuit against the registrants of the copycat domain names because it established a likelihood of success on the merits under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The district court ordered the registrants, users, owners, operators, or persons in control of the domain names “fisher-investments-europe.org” and “fisherinvestmentseurope.net” to suspend such domain names; and enjoined and restrained them from taking any actions to transfer the domain names from Dynadot, Inc. to any other registrar, from operating the domain names, or from otherwise using the “Fisher Investments” marks (Fisher Asset Management, LLC v. Fisher-Investments-Europe.Org, No. 5:26-cv-04469-PCP (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2026)).

Background. Fisher Asset Management, LLC (Fisher) widely known as “Fisher Investments” 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 third parties registered two domain names referring to “Fisher Investments.” The first, “fisher-investments-europe.org,” hosts a website styled as the “official website” 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 submitted an abuse complaint to Dynadot, Inc., the publicly listed registrar for both domain names, which is located in San Mateo, California. Dynadot refused to disable the domain names or transfer them to Fisher saying it cannot reveal the owners without a subpoena or court order. Fisher also sent notices of alleged trademark infringement and cybersquatting to the email addresses listed on the website hosted at the domain names, but the e-mails bounced. Having failed to secure the suspension of the domain names or to unmask their registrants through other means, Fisher commenced an action alleging that these domain names infringe and dilute Fisher’s registered “Fisher Investments” mark in violation of the Lanham Act and constitute “cybersquatting” in violation of the ACPA.

Fisher moved for a declaration that the registration and use of the allegedly infringing domain names 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. The court ordered any interested party to show cause at a hearing on May 27, 2026 why a permanent injunction should not issue. However, no party other than Fisher appeared at that hearing.

Preliminary injunction. Citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), the court observed that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

Likelihood of success on the merits. Fisher sought to compel the transfer of the allegedly infringing domain names from the current registrants to Fisher. To succeed on its cybersquatting claim under the ACPA in this in rem action, Fisher must show that (1) it owns a valid mark; (2) the domain names against which the action is brought violate Fisher’s rights to the mark; (3) those domain names are located in this judicial district; and (4) Fisher has through due diligence been unable to find a person who could be a defendant or would be unable to obtain in personam jurisdiction over such a person. The court found that Fisher has made a clear showing of each element. First, Fisher owns two registered marks for “Fisher Investments” that are presumptively valid. Second, the use of the domain names “fisher-investments-europe.org” and “fisherinvestmentseurope.net” to host websites for “Fisher Investments Europe” very likely violates Fisher’s rights to its registered marks. The allegedly infringing domain names include Fisher’s mark in its entirety, merely adding the word “Europe,” hyphens, and “.org” or “.net.” In addition, the websites hosted at the domain names prominently display “Fisher Investments Europe” while advertising services similar or identical to Fisher’s own investment-management and investment-advisory services. The use of Fisher’s mark in full to promote services of the type offered by Fisher bears a clear risk of confusing actual or potential clients of Fisher. Third, the registrar of the allegedly infringing domain names Dynadot is located in this judicial district. Finally, Fisher has shown that it will very likely be unable, through due diligence, to find a person who could be a defendant. Further, even if Fisher could identify potential defendants, it has established that the individuals may not be subject to in personam jurisdiction in this district. The websites hosted by both allegedly infringing domain names list physical addresses in France, and it was unclear from the websites whether those defendants would have the minimum contacts with this forum needed to subject the registrants to personal jurisdiction here. Thus, the court found that Fisher was likely to succeed on the merits.

Irreparable harm. The court noted that Fisher demonstrated that the use of the allegedly infringing domain names will likely cause reputational harm to Fisher. The websites hosted at the allegedly infringing domain names have been flagged by browsers and security services for potential phishing and actively solicit users’ personal information. Additionally, Fisher pointed out that due to the domain names’ and websites’ use of Fisher’s marks, consumers will likely be confused, and some may disclose personal information to the domain-name registrants under the false impression that they are providing information to Fisher. Harm to consumers from such phishing will likely, in turn, tarnish Fisher’s reputation as a trusted advisory service and asset manager. Such intangible harms to a business’s reputation and the resulting loss of consumer goodwill cannot be retroactively cured. Thus, Fisher established that it will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.

Balance of equities. The court found that in contrast to the irreparable harm Fisher will likely suffer absent a preliminary injunction, the only hardship that the registrants will suffer is lost profits from an activity which has been shown likely]to be infringing. Therefore, the balance of the equities also favors Fisher.

Public interest. Lastly, the public interest also weighed in Fisher’s favor because public policy strongly supports shutting down infringers to protect consumers where there is a likelihood of confusion. In addition to the harm caused the trademark owner, the consuming public is equally injured by an inadequate judicial response to trademark infringement.

Notice to adverse parties. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), the court may issue a preliminary injunction “only on notice to the adverse party.” The court found that Fisher was unable either to find or to obtain personal jurisdiction over a would-be defendant despite its due diligence and notice to the registrants at their known physical and electronic addresses. Because Fisher has effected service of process under the ACPA, the registrants may be charged with notice as a matter of law. Additionally, the court found that Fisher’s repeated outreach to the registrants’ known addresses including by sending pre-suit notices of the registrants’ alleged ACPA violations and by serving copies of the complaint, a temporary restraining order application, and the court’s prior order in this action provided sufficient notice for the purposes of Rule 65(a)(1).

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; Fisherinvestmentseurope.net

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews