Perplexity Solved Solutions, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.
3:25-cv-00989
N.D. Cal.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Perplexity Solved Solutions, Inc. sued Defendant Perplexity AI, Inc. for trademark infringement and asserted a cybersquatting claim under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).
- Defendant moved to dismiss the cybersquatting claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff alleged Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s mark, the marks were confusingly similar, Defendant offered to buy Plaintiff’s mark, and Defendant intended to divert web traffic.
- The court determined that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendant’s bad faith intent to profit from the mark were insufficient and conclusory.
- The decision was made based on written submissions, without oral argument, and Plaintiff was granted leave to amend its complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of bad faith allegations for ACPA cybersquatting | Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s mark and intended to profit by diverting traffic and offering to buy mark | Allegations do not plausibly show bad faith intent to profit | Plaintiff did not plausibly allege bad faith intent; claim dismissed |
| Use of Defendant’s domain as evidence of bad faith | Domain name was confusingly similar and used in bad faith | Mere similarity and offer to buy not enough | Similarity and offer to buy do not show ACPA bad faith |
| Support for inference of intent to divert web traffic | Defendant intended to divert traffic from Plaintiff | No factual support for intent to divert | No factual allegations supporting intent to divert traffic |
| Comparability to precedent cases (like Intel) | Similarity to cases where bad faith was found | Plaintiff’s facts not comparable to precedent | Plaintiff’s allegations weaker than in cited precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) (defining and explaining cybersquatting under the ACPA)
- DSPT Int’l, Inc. v. Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (establishing elements for cybersquatting under the ACPA)
- Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2009) (bad faith is required for ACPA claims, but not for general trademark claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: conclusory statements are insufficient)