IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: News publishers win a first round against AI provider Cohere, (Nov 14, 2025)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Copyright and trademark allegations over the Command family of chatbots will move forward.

A Canadian tech company that scraped up copies of newspaper and magazine articles to power an artificial intelligence service would not get a speedy exit to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit filed against it by a group of publishing companies, the federal court for Manhattan has held. The court, in denying the company’s motion to dismiss, emphasized that the publishers adequately alleged that the AI company directly infringed copyrights—and induced its own users to infringe as well—by reproducing copyrighted works in response to user inputs. The court also found that the complaint adequately stated trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act (Advance Local Media LLC v. Cohere Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01305-CM (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025)).

The opinion arises out of a lawsuit by a collection of news publishers against Cohere, a Canadian company that operates a suite of artificial intelligence models known as the Command Family of models. The publishers’ complaint, filed in February of this year, accuses Command of training on copyrighted materials without permission, replicating copyrighted materials in its responses to user prompts, and passing off inaccurate stories under the publishers’ protected trademarks. Condé Nast, The Atlantic, Politico, Forbes, the LA Times, The Guardian, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer lead a list of roughly one dozen publications behind the lawsuit.

Cohere moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to this opinion.

Direct infringement. The court began by refusing to narrow the direct copyright infringement claim against Cohere. The AI company claimed that it could not have infringed on the publishers’ works where it only summarized those works—rather than reproducing them in full—in response to user prompts. But the complaint alleged much more than mere summarizing, the court argued. The publishers argued, the court noted, that Command’s output “heavily paraphrases and copies phrases verbatim from the source article,” and that these summaries went “well beyond a limited recitation of facts, including by lifting expression directly or parroting the piece's organization, writing style, and punctation.” That was enough, the court found, to allow the direct infringement claim go forward.

Secondary infringement. The court also refused to dismiss the claims of secondary infringement against Cohere. For one, the court noted, the publishers adequately alleged that Command’s own users infringed copyrights when they entered prompts that requested copyrighted materials. Crucially, the court noted, it did not matter that the publishers had provided only examples of outputs requested by their own investigators. At this stage of the case, the court noted, the record of infringement using Command “is not visible to third parties, as infringement typically takes place behind closed doors.” For this reason, the court noted, “courts routinely find that the actions of a plaintiff's investigator can form the basis of an infringement claim.” Nor did it matter, the court emphasized, that the publishers’ investigators had to breach Cohere’s terms of service in order to receive the allegedly infringing outputs. “Cohere has not cited a single case to support dismissal of an infringement claim based on a potential breach of a website's terms of service in connection with uncovering the alleged infringement,” the court found.

The court also found that the publishers adequately alleged Cohere’s knowledge of its users’ infringement. Unlike in other circuits, the court noted, in the Second Circuit a plaintiff is not required to allege “actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement.” Rather, the court noted, the knowledge standard is “an objective one” in that contributory infringement liability is imposed on persons who “know or have reason to know” of the direct infringement. Here, the court found, that standard was easily met. Indeed, the court noted, the publishers alleged that Cohere knew that training its LLMs, including Command, on their works would result in the unauthorized display of such works, “because it was designed to do exactly that.” Moreover, the court noted, Cohere has allegedly continued to unlawfully copy the publishers' works despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter informing Cohere of its infringing activities. In all, the court noted, knowledge was amply alleged in the complaint.

Finally, the court noted, the publishers also amply alleged that Cohere induced its users to commit infringement—particularly by advertising Command as a tool to access news in order to solicit customers. For example, in a September 2023 marketing pitch, the complaint asserts, Cohere advertised Command's ability to conduct “a web search to access the latest news about trends and competitors.” Similarly, in September 2024, Cohere announced the Cohere AI app, touting its ability to “keep you up to date with the latest news.” Given that the publishers alleged that Cohere intentionally programmed Command to generate and deliver copies of their works to third parties, the court noted, these allegations were sufficient to allege that Cohere induced its users to infringe as well.

Trademark infringement. The court also refused to dismiss the publishers’ complaint for trademark infringement. Cohere argued that to the extent its outputs contained the publishers’ trademarks, that did not constitute a “use in commerce” of those trademarks because the trademarks were not used to promote a sale of any underlying product. But in determining whether a plaintiff has satisfied the "use in commerce" requirement, the court noted, the question was “whether the trademark has been displayed to consumers in connection with a commercial transaction.” Here, the court noted, the publishers had plausibly pleaded that their trademarks are displayed to consumers in connection with a commercial transaction because they allege that Cohere displays those marks online when advertising its products and services. In addition, the court noted, the publishers also alleged that Cohere's use of the trademarks constitutes “use in commerce” because such use is likely to divert traffic, sales, and subscriptions from the publishers. Those allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage, the court found.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01305-CM.

Judge: McMahon, C.

Attorneys: Attorneys: Scott A. Zebrak (Oppenheim & Zebrak, LLP) for Advance Local Media LLC, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast, The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC, Forbes Media LLC, Guardian News & Media Limited, Insider, Inc., Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, The McClatchy Company, LLC, Newsday, LLC, Plain Dealer Publishing Co., Politico LLC, The Republican Company, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, and Vox Media, LLC. R. David Hosp (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) for Cohere Inc.

Companies: Advance Local Media LLC; Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast; The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC; Forbes Media LLC; Guardian News & Media Limited; Insider, Inc.; Los Angeles Times Communications LLC; The McClatchy Company, LLC; Newsday, LLC; Plain Dealer Publishing Co.; Politico LLC; The Republican Company; Toronto Star Newspapers Limited; Vox Media, LLC; Cohere Inc.

MainStory: TopStory AINews Copyright TechnologyInternet Trademark NewYorkNews GCNNews