IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: LSAC alleges AI test prep service infringed on its trademarks and copyrights, (Jan 8, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

LSAC alleged the defendants agreed to the terms and conditions of its LawHub service to gain access to its proprietary content.

The Law School Admission Council, Inc., (LSAC) filed suit against Chatty Courses, Inc., Mun Dot So, Inc., and an individual (defendants, collectively), alleging that the defendants, which operate an online service, “AI Tutor for LSAT,” have used and currently use LSAC’s marks, copyrighted works, and proprietary content without authorization. LSAC brought claims of breach of contract, direct copyright infringement, vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement, infringement of registered trademarks, unfair competition and false designation of origin, unfair trade practices, trademark infringement under Pennsylvania common law, and dilution of trademarks under Pennsylvania law. LSAC seeks compensatory, actual, statutory, punitive, and exemplary damages (Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Chatty Courses, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-06905-JFM (E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 31, 2024)).

LSAC marks, copyrighted works, proprietary content. LSAC, a non-profit entity that provides products and services to law schools, law school candidates, law school students, and legal professionals, prepares and administers the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), which has been continuously administered for more than 75 years. LSAC owns active trademarks and service marks covering its products and services, including but not limited to LSAT®, LSAT Prep®, Law School Admission Test® and LawHub™. The marks are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). LSAC alleges its rights to use the marks has become incontestable. LSAC also owns unexpired copyrights covering the thousands of LSAT questions it has created. The works cover not only the exam questions, but also the instructions, answers, answer keys, and other related materials. The copyrighted works are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. As part of its business, LSAC grants royalty-bearing licenses to test-preparation companies, which permit such companies to use certain marks, copyrighted works, and/or proprietary content in connection with their courses. By allowing only authorized licensees to use these materials under specific circumstances, LSAC maintains the quality, integrity, and reputation of its products and services.

Alleged infringement. The defendants operate an online website, browser extension, and related services (infringing services, collectively). LSAC alleged the defendants began operating the infringing services at least as early as April 23, 2024; the infringing services have been and are currently accessible online and throughout the U.S., including in Pennsylvania. On June 27, 2024, the individual defendant created an account with LSAC’s website LawHub and accessed the service under a free subscription option, agreeing to the LawHub Terms, LSAC Terms, and LSAC Trademark Guidelines, allegedly intending to access Law Hub for competitive purposes other than preparing for the LSAT, which was prohibited by the LawHub Terms and LSAC Terms. The individual defendant again agreed to these terms when purchasing a paid LawHub Advantage subscription on September 11, 2024. On September 19, 2024, the individual defendant submitted an email to LSAC indicating he was interested in purchasing a license to LSAC’s intellectual property, stating in the email that he was not planning to use any LSAC trademarks and wanted to use LSAC’s copyright LSAT questions to help students prepare for the exam.

While LSAC has not granted the defendants a license to use any of LSAC’s marks, copyrighted works, or proprietary content, LSAC alleged the defendants have used and currently use certain of LSAC’s marks without authorization, advertising the infringing services as “LSAT AI Tutor” and “LSAT-GPT.” LSAC alleged that the uses of its marks without authorization are likely to confuse consumers about the source of the defendants’ products and/or services. In connection with marketing and/or operating the infringing services, the defendants reproduce, prepare derivative works based on, publicly distribute copies of, and/or publicly display the copyrighted works or portions thereof without LSAC’s authorization and/or induce others to do so, LSAC alleged. The defendants have not complied with cease-and-desist letters sent by LSAC. LSAC alleged it suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of the defendants’ actions; the resulting harm is severe, intangible, and of a type that cannot be adequately compensated for by money and cannot be reversed.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-06905-JFM.

Judge: Murphy, J.

Attorneys: Tiffany L. Powers (Alston & Bird LLP) for Law School Admission Council, Inc.

Companies: Law School Admission Council, Inc.; Chatty Courses, Inc.; Mun Dot So, Inc.

News: AINews Copyright TechnologyInternet Trademark PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews