IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: AI software company’s motion to dismiss granted in part over use of GLEAN mark, (Mar 4, 2026)

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

The district court found that claims for false designation of origin, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment were not sufficiently pled.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part an AI software company’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) regarding the use of the “GLEAN” trademark. The district court dismissed the claims for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and common law with leave to amend with respect to two trademarks. However, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim to the extent that the trademark owner seeks to recover damages and the unjust enrichment claim were dismissed without leave to amend (Glean IP Holdings Inc. v. Glean Technologies, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-08536-RFL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2026)).

Background. Glean IP Holdings Inc. (Glean IP), the owner of GLEAN® trademarks since 2019, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against an AI software company, Glean Technologies over its use of the “GLEAN” trademark. Glean IP alleged that Glean Technologies, Inc.’s use of the mark for its AI-powered productivity tools infringed trademarks continuously used since 2019 for financial analysis software, causing customer confusion and revenue losses. Glean Technologies moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7).

False designation of origin and trademark infringement claims. Glean IP brought false designation of origin and trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act and common law. Its claims covered three trademarks: the ’167 Mark; the ’682 Mark; and the ’582 Mark (collectively, Marks). The district court noted that Glean IP is entitled to a presumption that it is the owner of valid trademarks because it sufficiently alleged that the Marks are registered. Glean Technologies did not dispute that the Marks are registered but argued that Glean IP did not sufficiently allege either priority of use or continuous use.

The registrations attached to the complaint stated that Glean IP and its predecessor in interest Glean Analytics began using the ’167 Mark and the ’682 Mark in commerce in March 2023 and March 2025, respectively. Glean Technologies, however, allegedly began using the Marks earlier in 2021. Thus, the evidence of the registrations themselves, together with Glean IP’s allegations, rebutted the presumption and demonstrated that Glean IP did not have priority of use with respect to the ’167 Mark and the ’682 Mark.

However, Glean Technologies has not shown that the complaint itself rebuts the presumption of validity with respect to the ’582 Mark. As for priority of use, Glean IP attached to the complaint a copy of the trademark registration for the ’582 Mark, which reflects a first use date of September 1, 2019. September 2019 predates Glean Technologies’ alleged first use of the Marks in 2021, so the presumption of priority of use is bolstered, not rebutted, as to the ’582 Mark. Additionally, the argument that Glean Technologies started its business in 2019 does not undercut Glean IP’s priority of use because starting a business is not the same thing as using a trademark. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the false designation of origin and trademark infringement claims with respect to the ’167 Mark and the ’682 Mark and declined to dismiss those claims with respect to the ’582 Mark.

UCL. The district court found that Glean IP has sufficiently alleged a loss of money or property to establish UCL standing. Additionally, loss of goodwill satisfies the UCL’s economic injury requirement. Glean IP alleged that Glean Technologies’ infringement has caused, among other things, harm to its goodwill. That allegation is plausible in light of Glean IP’s specific allegations about prospective customers confusing Glean Analytics with Glean Technologies. The alleged loss of goodwill injured Glean IP even though it licensed the Marks to Glean Analytics and did not itself directly use the Marks. The district court also noted that Glean IP consented to dismiss its request for monetary damages under the UCL. Therefore, to the extent that Glean IP seeks to recover damages, as opposed to equitable relief, under the UCL, its UCL claim was dismissed without leave to amend. Accordingly, the UCL claim survived dismissal to the extent that Glean IP seeks equitable relief.

Unjust enrichment. The district court noted that Glean IP consented to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim of the complaint for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

Rule 12(b)(7). The district court denied Glean Technologies’ motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party. Glean Technologies argued under Rule 12(b)(7) that the district court must dismiss Glean IP’s case because Glean Analytics is a necessary but absent party under Rule 19(a). The district court noted that Glean IP primarily seeks damages and an injunction prohibiting Glean Technologies from using the Marks. Glean Analytics, however, has no ownership interest in the Marks following its assignment of the Marks to Glean IP and there is no reason why Glean Analytics is necessary for the court to meaningfully enjoin Glean Technologies’ behavior. Further, Glean Technologies did not explain why a determination in this action would collaterally estop Glean Analytics in a potential future action.

Additionally, Glean Technologies argued regarding the potential exposure to “double recovery, multiple lawsuits, and conflicting obligations” in the event that Glean Analytics is not joined because Glean Analytics could bring an identical lawsuit against Glean Technologies in the future. However, it is not clear how another lawsuit by Glean Analytics against Glean Technologies arising out of the same alleged conduct could result in issuance of an order creating conflicting obligations with any order issued in this case. Likewise, refusal to award damages or enjoin Glean Technologies in one action, and an award of damages or an injunction in the other action, would not force Glean Technologies to choose between complying with one order and breaching another. Thus, the district court concluded that Glean Analytics is not a necessary party.

Accordingly, the district court granted in part and denied in part Glean Technologies’ motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-08536-RFL.

Judge: Lin, R.

Attorneys: Jessica E. Fleetham (Evia Law PLC) for Glean IP Holdings Inc. Karineh Khachatourian (KXT Law, LLP) for Glean Technologies, Inc.

Companies: Glean IP Holdings Inc.; Glean Technologies, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark AINews CaliforniaNews GCNNews