Perplexity, the venture-backed startup constructing AI-powered search merchandise, has been sued in federal court docket for allegedly violating one other firm’s trademark.
In a criticism filed Thursday within the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, attorneys representing an organization referred to as Perplexity Solved Solutions accuse Perplexity of infringing on its trademark rights by utilizing the model “Perplexity.”
Perplexity Solved Solutions, a Plano, Texas-based agency based in 2017, utilized to register the Perplexity trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in October 2021, in keeping with the criticism.
Perplexity Solved Solutions primarily sells HR and office collaboration software program, together with a unified dashboard for HR analytics and a videoconferencing instrument referred to as Perplexity Meet. The firm secured a trademark registration by November 2022 and began selling merchandise on its website, perplexityonline.com, a site that Perplexity Solved Solutions had registered in 2021.
Perplexity and counsel for Perplexity Solved Solutions didn’t reply as of press time. TechCrunch will replace the article if both occasion feedback.
The Texas firm alleges that AI startup Perplexity started infringing on its trademark “in or round” August 2022 to advertise its AI-powered search engine. The month prior — July 2022 — Perplexity had registered the area perplexity.ai, which the criticism additionally alleges is infringement.
“The [Perplexity] web site at the moment situated on the infringing area identify prominently options the Perplexity [trademark],” the criticism reads, “[and] the infringing items and companies are extremely much like these supplied by Perplexity [Solved Solutions] and attraction to an analogous buyer base. For instance, Perplexity [Solved Solutions’] ‘Perplexity Meet’ and defendant’s ‘Perplexity Spaces’ each are software program platforms that facilitate communication and collaboration amongst colleagues in companies and different organizations.”
Perplexity Spaces, which the San Francisco-based AI startup launched for enterprise prospects in October, are hubs with a customizable AI assistant and connectors to third-party platforms, apps, and file methods.
The criticism alleges that Perplexity has “saturated the market” with its infringing branding, together with advertising and marketing throughout its numerous social media accounts. The AI startup declined to buy the Perplexity trademark in September 2023 when supplied, per the criticism, and as a substitute opted to file for its personal trademark with the USPTO, which remains to be pending.
According to the criticism, Perplexity didn’t adjust to a stop and desist letter from Perplexity Solved Solutions’ counsel, and it hasn’t withdrawn its pending trademark utility — regardless of efforts to oppose the applying earlier than the USPTO’s trial and attraction board.
Attorneys for Perplexity Solved Solutions say that Perplexity’s use of its trademark is prone to sow confusion.
“In reality, upon data and perception, shoppers have already got been confused,” the criticism reads. “For instance, on quite a few events, social media customers have ‘tagged’ Perplexity of their posts about defendant’s infringing items and companies.”
The criticism alleges that Perplexity’s conduct violates legal guidelines, together with the Lanham Act — the U.S. federal regulation that regulates emblems and unfair competitors. Among different types of authorized reduction, Perplexity Solved Solutions is looking for to bar Perplexity from utilizing its trademark, in addition to the trademark “Perplexity AI,” pay damages, and switch possession of any domains that embrace Perplexity branding.
It’s the newest courtroom headache for Perplexity, which is at the moment battling a lawsuit filed by News Corp’s Dow Jones and the NY Post over what the plaintiffs describe as a “content material kleptocracy.” Many different information websites have expressed issues that Perplexity carefully replicates their content material — simply final October, The New York Times despatched the startup a stop and desist letter.
