Gemini Data, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against tech giant Google LLC. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges trademark infringement for using the registered trademark “GEMINI.”
Background and Trademark History
Gemini Data Inc., a San Francisco-based AI company founded in 2013, has been at the forefront of enterprise-level generative AI solutions. In a strategic move to protect its intellectual property, the company filed for trademark registration of “GEMINI” in 2019. This registration, granted in 2021 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), covers multiple classes including:
- Class 09 (Nice Classification) and Classes 021, 023, 026, 036, 038 (U.S. Classification) for “Recorded computer software for use in business enterprise big data collection, transmission, visualization, integration, analysis, management, and storage using machine learning and artificial intelligence, none of the foregoing for use in connection with energy production”
- Class 42 (Nice Classification) and Classes 100, 101(U.S Classification) for “Software as a service (SaaS) services featuring software for use in business enterprise big data collection, transmission, visualization, integration, analysis, management, and storage using machine learning and artificial intelligence, none of the foregoing for use in connection with energy production”
In December 2023 Google rebranded its originally launched AI system from “Bard” to “GEMINI”. This action has raised serious questions about Google’s respect for intellectual property rights and fair competition practices.
Infringement
The conflict arose when Google filed a trademark application in February 2024 for the word mark “GEMINI” under Class 09. In response, the USPTO issued a non-final action, refusing the mark on the following grounds:
- Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
- Prior-Filed Applications
Section 2(d)[1] of U.S Trademark of 1946 states “Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive: Provided, That if the Director determines that confusion, mistake, or deception is not likely to result from the continued use by more than one person of the same or similar marks under conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with which such marks are used, concurrent registrations may be issued to such persons when they have become entitled to use such marks as a result of their concurrent lawful use in -10- November 25, 2013 commerce prior to (1) the earliest of the filing dates of the applications pending or of any registration issued under this chapter; (2) July 5, 1947, in the case of registrations previously issued under the Act of March 3, 1881, or February 20, 1905, and continuing in full force and effect on that date; or (3) July 5, 1947, in the case of applications filed under the Act of February 20, 1905, and registered after July 5, 1947. Use prior to the filing date of any pending application or a registration shall not be required when the owner of such application or registration consents to the grant of a concurrent registration to the applicant. Concurrent registrations may also be issued by the Director when a court of competent jurisdiction has finally determined that more than one person is entitled to use the same or similar marks in commerce. In issuing concurrent registrations, the Director shall prescribe conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the mark or the goods on or in connection with which such mark is registered to the respective persons”
The USPTO’s refusal explicitly stated that ‘GEMINI GEMINI DATA’ U.S. Registration No. 6380947 In this case, the applied-for mark, “GEMINI”, and the registered mark, ‘GEMINI GEMINI DATA’, are similar in appearance and sound, as both marks begin with the identical term, “GEMINI”, creating a similar overall commercial impression. In this case, the applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.[2]
Gemini Data Inc.’s lawsuit seeks an injunction to restrict Google’s use of the “GEMINI” name and claims monetary damages for unfair competition and trademark infringement. Gemini Data argues that “Google made the calculated decision to bulldoze over Gemini Data’s exclusive rights without hesitation.”
The plaintiff further alleges that Google “knowingly and willfully”[3] violated Gemini Data’s intellectual property rights by using the name “Gemini” for its AI system. This allegation suggests that Gemini Data believes Google was aware of the potential infringement and proceeded regardless, potentially strengthening its case for willful infringement.
Implication
The lawsuit pits a smaller, specialized AI company against one of the world’s largest tech corporations, raising questions about fair competition in the tech industry. The core issue will probably revolve around whether Google’s use of “GEMINI” creates a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace, particularly given the overlapping focus on AI technologies. If Gemini Data prevails, the court could order Google to cease using the “GEMINI” name and pay monetary damages, potentially setting a precedent for future trademark disputes in the rapidly evolving AI sector.
This high-stakes legal battle underscores the importance of trademark protection in the competitive AI industry. This will probably draw significant attention from legal experts, tech industry observers, and AI companies alike. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how tech giants approach branding and intellectual property rights in an increasingly crowded AI marketplace.
[1] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/trademarks/law/Trademark_Statutes.pdf
