IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Preliminary injunction denied in cybersquatting dispute over ‘JaredIsaacmanCourtCase.com’ domain name, (Sep 10, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Plaintiffs failed to show that Jared Isaacman’s personal name qualified as a protected mark; the absence of secondary meaning and trademark fame undermined ACPA claims.

A federal district court in San Francisco, California, denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Shift4 Payments, LLC, and its founder, Jared Isaacman, in a cybersquatting lawsuit against Cloudflare, Inc. and anonymous defendants accused of cybersquatting and defamation. The court held that plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of success on the merits under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), because Isaacman’s personal name lacked the requisite status as a “protected mark.” The court accordingly dissolved an earlier temporary restraining order (Shift4 Payments, LLC v. JaredIsaacmanCourtCase.com, No. 4:25-cv-06724-JST (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025)).

Background. Shift4 Payments is a publicly traded payment processing company. Jared Isaacman, its founder and former CEO, is also a private astronaut and high-profile pilot. The defendants include the domain JaredIsaacmanCourtCase.com, registrar Cloudflare, Inc., and fictitious individuals and corporations responsible for creating JaredIsaacmanCourtCase.com, AIGeneratedBooks.org, and TheLuckyTrigger.com.

The three websites disseminated fabricated information about a fictitious federal lawsuit titled Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC. JaredIsaacmanCourtCase.com hosted over 2,400 AI-generated “exhibits” and 61 false quotes attributed to Isaacman, suggesting criminal acts, drug use, and financial misconduct. AIGeneratedBooks.org claimed to use artificial intelligence to uncover the supposed case and marketed a book titled The Lucky Trigger. TheLuckyTrigger.com promoted the same book, offering a 15,420-page PDF of the fabricated exhibits.

Plaintiffs reported the content to Cloudflare in July 2025, requesting takedown and registrant information, but Cloudflare declined. After the false material spread to third-party platforms such as Scribd and Dailymotion, plaintiffs filed suit on August 8, 2025, alleging cybersquatting, defamation, false light, and business disparagement, and sought injunctive relief.

Preliminary injunction standard. Referencing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008), the court emphasized that injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy” requiring a clear showing of entitlement. Citing Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009), it also noted that the plaintiffs must show likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with public interest. Ninth Circuit also applies a sliding-scale approach allowing injunctions where “serious questions” exist if other factors strongly favor the plaintiff (Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Application of ACPA. Plaintiffs argued that the use of Isaacman’s name in JaredIsaacmanCourtCase.com constituted cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). The court found that personal names are generally descriptive and only qualify as marks when they acquire distinctiveness or secondary meaning. Citing Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2000), and Black v. Irving Materials, Inc., 2019 WL 1995342 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2019), the court emphasized that secondary meaning arises when the public associates a name with a company’s goods or services rather than the individual. Plaintiffs provided only conclusory assertions equating Isaacman’s name with Shift4, which the court found insufficient.

Fame as a mark. Plaintiffs alternatively contended that Isaacman’s name was protectable as a “famous mark” under the Lanham Act. The court rejected this, noting that statutory fame requires widespread recognition as a source identifier for goods or services, measured by advertising, sales, and consumer recognition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)). Plaintiffs presented no evidence linking Isaacman’s name to commercial offerings. The court distinguished personal notoriety from trademark fame, citing Polin v. Behrman, 2010 WL 11545054 (C.D. Cal. December 13, 2010), aff'd, 429 F. App’x 682 (9th Cir. 2011), and reaffirmed that even well-known names such as “Princess Diana” had failed to establish secondary meaning in prior cases.

Conclusion. Thus, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not established Isaacman’s name as a protected mark under the ACPA, leaving them unable to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits. Without satisfying this threshold, the court declined to evaluate irreparable harm, equities, or public interest. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order previously granted.

The Case is No. 4:25-cv-06724-JST.

Judge: Tigar, J.

Attorneys: Robert Edward Dunn (Eimer Stahl LLP) for Shift4 Payments, LLC.

Companies: Shift4 Payments, LLC; JaredisaacmanCourtCase.com; Cloudflare, Inc.; AIGeneratedBooks.org; TheLuckyTrigger.com

Cases: AINews Trademark TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews