US
Perplexity AI, Inc. Wins Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Over “Perplexity” in
the United States
On October
29, 2025, Reuters and other media outlets reported that the artificial
intelligence startup Perplexity AI, Inc. (“Perplexity”) prevailed in a
trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the software company Perplexity Solved
Solutions (“PSS”) over the use of the name “Perplexity.”
(Factual
Background)
In January 2025, PSS filed a trademark infringement action against Perplexity
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to
prohibit Perplexity from using the name “Perplexity” as its brand.
. Founded in 2017, PSS provides software that leverages
AI-driven data analysis to simplify complex business needs and improve
communication and collaboration. PSS applied for registration of the trademark
“Perplexity,” covering software services, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) in October 2021 and obtained trademark rights in 2022.
. Perplexity, established in 2022, is a company
offering an AI-based search engine.
. PSS alleged that Perplexity attempted to
acquire its trademark in 2023 but was refused, and further claimed that it sent
a cease-and-desist letter to Perplexity regarding use of the name in October
2024.
. PSS filed the lawsuit on grounds that
Perplexity’s name would cause consumer confusion. Perplexity denied the
infringement allegations, asserted that no consumer confusion had occurred, and
filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of PSS’s trademark registration.
(Procedural
History)
In July 2025, PSS’s legal team from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
requested to withdraw from representation, citing an “irreparable breakdown in
the attorney-client relationship” that made continued representation
impossible. The court granted the request in August 2025.
. The court made clear that because PSS is a
corporate entity, (1) it may appear in federal court only through licensed
counsel, and (2) failure to retain substitute counsel could result in a default
judgment on the counterclaim and dismissal of its claims against the defendant.
(Court’s
Decision)
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the
trademark infringement action filed by PSS.
. After the withdrawal of its legal team, PSS
was unable to retain new counsel. Although PSS requested additional time due to
financial difficulties, the court rejected the request on October 9, 2025.
. Perplexity subsequently asked the court to
terminate the case because the plaintiff could not secure counsel to represent
it.
< Source of this post >
https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=US¤tPage=2&po_no=23993
EU
EUIPO
Releases Report on “Influencers and IP”
On November
10, 2025, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published a
report titled “Influencers
and IP,” analyzing how social media influencers across the European
Union (EU) perceive and engage with intellectual property (IP), as well as the
impact they have on the online consumption behavior of younger generations.
(Overview)
Influencer marketing on social media continues its rapid growth and is now a
major driver of global economic trends. The market is expected to reach
approximately USD 32.55 billion in 2025. Social media influencers today play a
significant role in shaping public opinion and cultural development in the
digital era, exerting strong and influential power over the values and
consumption patterns of EU citizens—especially younger generations.
(Key Findings)
The report is based on an online survey of 300 influencers active on Instagram,
TikTok, and YouTube across the 27 EU Member States. Major findings include the
following:
1.
Influencers’ Ownership of IP Rights (IPRs) and Its Impact on Professional
Growth.
. A vast majority of respondents (92%) reported
that they are professionally active and generate income through their social
media content. However, only 18% of influencers indicated that they own IPRs
such as trademarks, copyrights, or design rights.
. Influencers who owned IPRs tended to be at a
more advanced entrepreneurial and creative stage: 55% of them owned their own
brand, and 33% operated an online store.
. In comparison, among influencers without
IPRs, only 24% owned their own brand, and just 14% operated an online store.
2. Influencers’
Respect for IP and Sense of Responsibility
. Influencers demonstrated a strong ethical
awareness regarding respect for IP. A large majority stated that they actively
avoid promoting counterfeit products (94%) and illegally copied digital content
(93%) in their work.
. Additionally, 96% of respondents said they
feel responsible for the influence their content has on the public, and 92%
reported that they review the credibility and appropriateness of a brand before
creating collaborative content.
3.
Influencers and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
. Many influencers indicated that they actively
incorporate AI into their creative workflows, with more than half (51%) saying
they use AI “often” or “sometimes” in content production.
. Moreover, 47% expressed concern that their content
could be altered by AI and used for others’ benefit, while 72% acknowledged the
possibility that AI-generated outputs may infringe existing IPRs.
< Source of this post >
https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=EU&po_no=24014
No comments:
Post a Comment