Glean IP Holdings v. Glean Technologies — Court Partially Dismisses Trademark Claims After Registration Dates Undercut Priority

Background

Glean IP Holdings — a trademark holding company — sued Glean Technologies, a well-known enterprise AI search startup, for federal and common law trademark infringement over the “GLEAN” mark. Glean IP holds three trademark registrations covering the mark and brought claims under the Lanham Act, state common law, and California’s unfair competition statute. Glean Technologies moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7).

The dispute turned on a fundamental trademark question: who used the mark first? Glean IP’s registrations covered marks with different first-use-in-commerce dates — September 2019, March 2023, and March 2025. Glean Technologies, meanwhile, began using “Glean” in connection with its AI search platform in 2021.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Lin granted the motion in part and denied it in part, drawing sharp lines based on which registration was at issue.

Two marks dismissed (with leave to amend): For the ‘167 and ‘682 marks — with first-use dates of March 2023 and March 2025 — the court found that Glean IP’s own registrations defeated the presumption of priority. Because the complaint itself showed that Glean Technologies was using the mark as early as 2021, the registration dates actually proved the defendant had priority. The court rejected Glean IP’s oral-argument attempt to invoke constructive use based on an intent-to-use application, finding the argument waived for not being raised in briefing.

One mark survives: The ‘582 mark, with a first-use date of September 1, 2019, predated Glean Technologies’ claimed 2021 use. The court held that this registration created a valid presumption of ownership and priority that the defendant failed to rebut. Importantly, the court noted that Glean Technologies “starting its business in 2019” was not the same as using a trademark in commerce — actual use in selling goods or services is required.

The court also rejected the argument that licensing the marks to a related entity (Glean Analytics) broke continuous use, reaffirming that a licensor may establish use through its licensee so long as it maintains quality control.

Key Takeaways

• Your own registration can sink your claims. When a registration’s first-use date is later than the defendant’s alleged first use, the presumption of validity flips from a sword into a shield for the defendant — a cautionary tale for holding companies asserting registrations with recent priority dates.
• “Starting a business” is not “using a mark.” The court drew a clear distinction between corporate formation and actual trademark use in commerce, reinforcing that priority requires bona fide use of the mark in connection with goods or services.
• Licensing preserves continuity — if quality control exists. Trademark holders that license their marks to operating entities can still claim continuous use, provided the licensor maintains quality control over the licensee’s goods or services.
• Constructive use arguments must be raised in briefing. The court found Glean IP waived its constructive-use theory by raising it for the first time at oral argument.

Why It Matters

This case offers a textbook lesson on the interplay between trademark registration and priority of use. For the growing number of IP holding companies asserting trademarks against successful tech startups, the opinion is a reminder that a registration certificate is only as strong as the dates it contains. For defendants, it illustrates how a carefully crafted motion to dismiss can exploit the plaintiff’s own filings to neutralize the presumption of validity. With the AI industry spawning naming conflicts at a rapid pace — Glean Technologies is a well-funded enterprise AI search company backed by major investors — this ruling will likely inform future trademark disputes between legacy mark holders and fast-growing tech companies.