IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Cal.: Health tech company granted temporary restraining order against cybersquatter, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

Hume Health Corp. demonstrated a likelihood of success on all eight causes of action filed against a California company which registered three websites that were blatantly designed to impersonate Hume’s.

A federal court in California granted a health technology company’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a limited liability company organized under California law that had registered and operated three purportedly infringing domain names. The court determined that Hume Health Corp. and Hume Health Care LLC (collectively, Hume) were likely to succeed on the merits against defendant MetaFit Pharma Solutions LLC, doing business as “Trim RX,” for eight distinct claims asserting violations of federal law, California law, and the common law. The court directed Hume to serve TrimRX with a copy of the order granting the TRO and related requests no later than August 19, 2026 (Hume Health Corp. v. Metafit Pharma Solutions LLC, No. 3:26-cv-04625-TWR-VET (S.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2026)).

Factual background. Hume is a health technology company that offers smart scales, body-composition analyzers, wearable health-tracking devices, and related services. It has used the “HUME HEALTH” mark in United States commerce since at least December 31, 2020. Hume owns associated trademark registrations domestically and internationally, including “HUME HEALTH,” “HUMECARE,” and “HUMERX.” It also has pending trademark applications, including a “distinctive hourglass logo.” In addition, Hume owns common law trademark rights in the “HUME” marks.

Hume operates its official website at <www.humecare.com>, where it markets its physician-led telehealth weight-management program, which combines prescription GLP-1 medication with body-composition scanning, supportive therapies, clinician access, and the Hume Health app.

On July 1, 2026, the following domains were registered: <humecare.org>, <hume-care.org>, and <humecare.net> (Infringing Domains) by unknown registrants. (Their identities were concealed by a privacy-protection service.) Each website declared itself to be Hume’s official site, and each marketed the same “Hume Care RX” program, promoted the same “Free Hume Health App,” named the same purported clinical personnel, and repeated the same outcome claims and statistics as <humecare.com>, with only slightly different phraseology. Beginning in August 2026, the latter two Infringing Domains redirected users to <humecare.org>.

Hume sufficiently demonstrated that each website associated with the Infringing Domains held itself out as Hume’s official website and claimed ownership of Hume’s trademarks. Each instructed visitors to contact e-mail addresses associated with Hume’s actual domain (e.g., support@humecare.com) for refund requests, cancellations, legal questions, and accessibility issues. Each solicited personal identifying and health information from visitors as a prerequisite for prescription GLP-1 medication. The <humecare.org> website also sold recurring subscriptions that collected consumers’ payment information and renewed automatically.

Procedural history. Hume filed a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy concerning <humecare.org> on July 15, 2026, and subsequently amended the complaint. That proceeding remains pending.

On August 12, 2026, Hume filed the operative complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint named TrimRX and Does 1 through 10 as defendants (collectively, TrimRX), the latter of which were unknown individuals or entities who allegedly registered, owned, operated, controlled, financed, or profited from the Infringing Domains. Hume asserted the following eight causes of action:

1. Cybersquatting, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

2. Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114

3. False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A).

4. False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).

5. Violation of the California Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22948.2

6. Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

7. False Advertising, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500

8. Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

Hume then filed an ex parte application for a TRO on August 13, 2026, which also requested an order to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue, an order authorizing expedited discovery, and an order authorizing alternative service.

Approval of TRO application. The court approved Hume’s TRO application and granted its related requests. In analyzing the TRO application under the four factors set forth in Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), the court found first that Hume had carried its burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to each cause of action asserted against TrimRX. It found second in Hume’s favor on the issue of irreparable ham. As for its Lanham Act claims (Claims 1 – 4), Hume was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm based on its showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. As for the remaining claims, the record independently established irreparable harm to Hume, including evidence of loss of control over business reputation and damage to goodwill. Thirdly, a balancing the equities—if a TRO were to issue—tipped in Hume’s favor, especially considering that TrimRX would “face little harm if they were enjoined from impersonating Hume, something they were never permitted to do to in the first place.” The final Winter factor favored Hume as well, as a TRO would serve the public interest by preventing consumer confusion and averting the practice of consumers unknowingly disclosing personal and financial information to a provider that they believed to be Hume.

Therefore, the following order issued, enjoining TrimRX from:

(a) using the HUME marks or any confusingly similar mark, name, logo, or domain name, including but not limited to HUMECARE, HUME CARE, HUMECARE+, HUME HEALTH, and Hume’s hourglass logo; [(b)] representing that [TrimRX] or their products or services are affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by Hume, including any claim to be Hume’s “official” website or to be operated by Hume Health Corp.; (c) using any email address, contact information, or customer-service channel that refers to Hume or the humecare.com domain; (d) publishing content copied or derived from Hume’s website; and (e) soliciting identifying, health, or payment information from any person by representing themselves to be Hume.

The Case is No. 3:26-cv-04625-TWR-VET.

Judge: Robinson, T.

Attorneys: James Creedon (Scale LLP) for Hume Health Corp.

Companies: Hume Health Corp.; Metafit Pharma Solutions LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark CaliforniaNews GCNNews