IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Summary judgment denied in dispute over Groq mark for healthcare app, (Mar 18, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Numerous factual disputes as to whether there was no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law between the Groq mark for an AI solution and Groq Health for a healthcare app precluded summary judgment.

In a trademark infringement action by an AI solutions company against the developer of a mobile healthcare application regarding its Groq mark, the AI company raised disputes of material fact as to the proximity of the respective products, strength of the Groq mark, actual consumer confusion, bad faith, quality of the defendants’ product, and level of sophistication of the relevant customers such that the developer failed to show that there was no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, the federal district court in New York City has held. Thus, the healthcare app developer’s motion for summary judgment was denied (Groq, Inc. v. Groq Health, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08325-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2026)).

Groq, Inc., founded in 2016 by its CEO Jonathan Ross, designs and manufactures microchips known as Language Processing Units (LPUs) for use with artificial intelligence models and provides AI solutions to companies in the healthcare industry. Groq holds registered trademarks in the marks “groq” and “GROQ.” Groq began to use the “groq” mark in 2017. In 2018, physician Dr. Florence Comite founded a company originally named Quantiome, Inc., which developed a health care application intended to provide personalized recommendations to quantify and optimize health. In February 2018, Dr. Comite filed an application to register QUANTIOME with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In 2022, Dr. Comite changed the name of her company to Groq Health, Inc.

In November 2022, Groq filed an application to register GROQHEALTH as a trademark on an intent-to-use basis, which included a declaration that Groq “has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.” Groq Health began offering a healthcare mobile app and planned to market the app broadly to the public. After sending Groq Health and Dr. Comite a cease and desist letter, in September 2023 Groq sued Groq Health and Dr. Comite alleging counts including federal and state trademark infringement, false designation of origin, injury to business reputation and dilution, and misappropriation and unfair competition. The defendants filed an answer which raised affirmative defenses and asserted counterclaims. In March 2025, the court granted Groq’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment directing the USPTO to cancel or refuse Groq’s pending g trademark application but refused to strike the defendants’ affirmative defense asserting that the plaintiffs did not have a bona fide intention to use its pending trademark in healthcare applications. Before the court was Groq Health and Dr. Comite’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks.

Proximity and bridging the gap. Since Groq raised material disputes with respect to virtually all of the factors set forth in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961), the defendants Groq Health and Dr. Comite did not show that there was no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, the court found. Regarding the proximity of the products, it was undisputed that Groq made chips and hardware for use in AI models and data centers and the Groq Health app did not compete with those products. Groq submitted evidence of its long-held intention to serve companies in the healthcare industry. The likelihood that Groq would provide its AI technology to a company that makes a healthcare app was not mere speculation as Groq provided specific evidence that it acquired a company that develops AI driven healthcare technologies, was pursuing another company that leverages the power of LLMs to help medical professionals with generic drug guidelines, and employs a chatbot that is used to research health questions. Further, the defendants’ attempt to dismiss as irrelevant their documented, current efforts to incorporate an AI chatbot into the Groq Health app was rejected.

Strength of the Groq mark. The strength of the mark, which depends on its distinctiveness or origin-indicating quality in the eyes of the purchasing public, was strenuously disputed by the parties. The defendants contended that the Groq mark was weak due to its co-existence with a crowded field of other Groq and Grok marks and that Groq failed to enforce its rights against other Groq and Grok users. Groq submitted evidence that it contacted the other Groq Health cited entities, its mark was the subject of more than 100 news articles, and millions of dollars of advertising was spent on marketing.

Actual confusion. Although it was disputed whether the Groq Health app had already been launched or was in a pilot phase, Groq offered some evidence of actual confusion. The evidence included a LinkedIn post in which Groq Health was mistakenly tagged instead of Groq and a survey report of its expert showing actual consumer confusion. Even if the court were to disregard Groq’s evidence as argued by the defendants, Groq raised a factual dispute as to whether the Groq Health app has launched and whether the lack of actual confusion weighed against a finding of a likelihood of confusion, the court noted.

Bad faith. There was also a dispute whether the defendants acted in bad faith. The defendants contended that Dr. Comite selected the name Groq Health in good faith for personal reasons as grok was her favorite word. Groq cited evidence that Dr. Comite represented to the IRS that the company name was changed in June 2022 and she initially denied ever having heard of Groq but later admitted that she learned of the Groq mark in December 2020. A trier of fact could conclude that Dr. Comite knew of Groq’s mark before she changed the name of her company to Groq Health.

Quality and consumer sophistication. Groq also raised a dispute as to whether the quality factor and consumer sophistication. The defendants argued that there was no evidence of any issue with the quality of the Groq Health app and Groq’s hardware is extremely expensive and its current group of customers pay a high price for the Groq Health app. Whereas, Groq contended that there were issues of a lack of quality control of the Groq Health app and the defendants planned to offer the Groq Health app more widely and at a much lower price. In light of the numerous factual disputes, the defendants did not show that there was no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, the court concluded.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-08325-MKV.

Judge: Vyskocil, M.

Attorneys: Bradley Stephen Pensyl (Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP) for Groq, Inc. Arshjit Raince (Goodwin Procter LLP) for Groq Health, Inc.

Companies: Groq, Inc.; Groq Health, Inc.

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews