IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Financial software company’s infringement lawsuit over ‘GLEAN’ marks survives dismissal challenge, (May 21, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The defendant’s earlier trademark did not defeat the plaintiff’s plausible claim of priority because the parties’ goods and services were not clearly overlapping at the pleading stage.

A federal district court in California has denied an AI software company’s renewed motion to dismiss a financial software provider’s infringement claims. The court found that the earlier use of a separate registered mark did not, as a matter of law, defeat the plaintiff’s asserted trademark rights. Further, the court concluded that the plaintiff plausibly alleged priority of use for its marks covering financial analytics and accounts payable software, and that the defendant’s reliance on an earlier mark tied to different software offerings did not warrant dismissal (Glean IP Holdings Inc. v. Glean Technologies, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-08536-RFL (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2026)).

Background. Glean IP Holdings Inc., a provider of financial analytics and accounts payable automation software, brought trademark infringement claims against Glean Technologies, Inc., which develops enterprise software platforms for data analysis, dashboards, and application development tools. Glean IP asserted rights in three federally registered marks—the ’167, ’582, and ’682 marks—covering cloud-based financial software, online analytics platforms, and mobile applications for cost analysis and financial decision-making.

Glean IP filed this lawsuit against Glean Technologies over the use of the GLEAN mark in enterprise software offerings. In an earlier ruling, the court dismissed certain trademark infringement and false designation claims with leave to amend after finding deficiencies in Glean IP’s allegations of priority of use for some of its marks. Glean IP subsequently filed an amended complaint to cure those deficiencies. Glean Technologies again moved to dismiss, arguing that its earlier use and registration of the ’819 mark established priority and rendered Glean IP’s marks invalid.

Priority. The court rejected the argument that earlier use of one trademark automatically extinguishes another party’s rights. Trademark protection, it explained, is confined to the goods and services identified in the registration, and priority must be assessed in that context. Citing Applied Information Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 970–71 (9th Cir. 2007), the court emphasized that ownership of a registered mark does not extend beyond the listed goods and services. As a result, even if Glean Technologies used its ’819 mark earlier, that use did not necessarily defeat Glean IP’s claims relating to financial software offerings.

Distinct offerings. A key issue was whether the parties’ software products were sufficiently similar to create overlapping rights. Glean IP’s marks were directed to accounts payable automation and financial analytics, while Glean Technologies’ mark covered broader application development and data analysis tools.

Even though both companies operated in the broader software industry, the relevant inquiry focused on the specific nature of their offerings. Relying on Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 183 F.2d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 1950), the court reiterated that similar marks may coexist when used on different goods. The possibility that the parties’ offerings overlap or occupy adjacent fields raised factual questions that could not be resolved without further development of the record.

Adjacent markets and expansion. Glean Technologies also argued that its earlier mark extended into the plaintiff’s field under the “natural zone of expansion” doctrine. According to the court, that argument did not carry weight at this stage of the case. The doctrine concerns a senior user's ability to enjoin a junior user in related markets, not the validity of a trademark registration. The court found that the plaintiff’s own characterization of the defendant’s expansion into “adjacent fields” reinforced the conclusion that the markets were not identical. Whether those fields were sufficiently related to support liability remained a fact-intensive question.

Allegations of first use. The defendant also challenged the plaintiff’s alleged dates of first use, pointing to materials suggesting a later start date. Even assuming those materials could be considered, the allegations still supported priority. The complaint asserted that Glean IP began using at least one of its marks in 2020, while Glean Technologies allegedly began using the marks in 2021. At the pleading stage, those allegations were sufficient to support a plausible claim of priority. Resolving competing evidence would require factual inquiry beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss.

Damages issue. The parties also addressed the scope of damages. Glean Technologies sought to limit recovery for certain marks to post-2025 conduct. However, the parties stipulated that damages would be limited to periods during which the plaintiff held valid trademark rights and the defendant engaged in infringement. That agreement rendered the issue moot for purposes of the motion.

The court, therefore, denied the motion to dismiss in its entirety.

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.

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews