Startups chose the same brand name. Now they’re headed to court. — Two AI
The case could test how broadly firms leveraging AI can claim trademark rights.
You launch your firm on TryKepler.ai. Another startup later buys GetKepler.ai, a domain you had hoped to acquire following its previous owner shut down.
A conflict between these two firms is the crux of an interesting trademark dispute filed this stretch.
Internet Forest Corporation, doing business as Fresh Generation, sued (pdf) Keru AI Inc. and its founders, Vinoo Ganesh and John McRaven.
The plaintiff operates a firm that applies AI to e-commerce businesses using the domain TryKepler.ai.
Ahead of that firm launched, GetKepler.ai belonged to a bioinformatics startup that also used artificial intelligence. In March, that firm disclosed it was winding down and posted a notice on its website saying it was moving on to a different business.
Following seeing the notice, the plaintiff’s founder contacted one of the founders regarding buying the domain. The parties didn’t immediately reach an agreement.
When the plaintiff followed up in May, the founder replied:
“I think we by now sold it to you!”
It hadn’t. It turns out they had sold it to a different firm. The founder replied:
OK sorry, Someone else reached out to my colleague, and I just assumed it was the same firm
thought it was unlikely that two firms would want our domain
The domain had actually been sold to Keru AI, which was rebranding as Kepler for its AI business right now targeted to the financial sector. In addition to acquiring GetKepler.ai, the firm also now owns Kepler.ai, and GetKepler.ai forwards to that domain.
The plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter, alleging trademark infringement.
The defendant rejected the claim (pdf), arguing that the two businesses are completely different. It also stated it has superior rights since it started to rebrand to Keppler ahead of the plaintiff launched its business, and:
Keru has since purchased the domain and the former domain owner’s (Keplogic, Inc.) associated common law rights in KEPLER for AI software that date back to at least as early as April 2025.
The lawsuit disputes that assertion, questioning whether the buyout included anything beyond the GetKepler.ai domain name itself.
Interestingly, the plaintiff cites the domain seller’s confusion as evidence of real-world confusion between the brands.
Another wrinkle stood out as I looked into the case.
The plaintiff never registered TryKepler.com, which remains available to register.
Meanwhile, GetKepler.com belongs to an entirely different firm using the Kepler name.
Why is it so popular?
Johannes Kepler was a 17th-century German astronomer and mathematician famous for his Three Laws of Planetary Motion.
A Google search turns up many businesses using the name Kepler, such as kepler.gl, Kepler Group, and Kepler Space.
The case raises an interesting trademark question.
Many firms are applying artificial intelligence to different industries and problems. If lots of startups use AI for entirely different purposes, how broad ought to trademark rights for an AI brand be? Can a firm claim exclusive rights to a name for “AI technology” generally, or ought to those rights be limited to the specific markets it serves?
