Glydways Inc., a transportation technology and clean energy company based in South San Francisco, Calif., has sued Los Angeles-based Glyd Inc. over the parties’ conflicting trademarks used in connection with their transportation services. The declaratory relief suit comes after Glyd sent Glydways a letter in December 2022 asking it to cease and desist infringement of its mark.
The complaint says that Glydways “provides mass transit services to the public, specializing in the design, manufacture, installation and operation of affordable autonomous transportation for low, medium and extremely high capacity needs.” The defendant, Glyd, purportedly provides business services in connection with a mobile application that allows users to post itineraries for travellers visiting their city or region.
Prior to Glyd’s letter, Glydways sought to register a Glydways mark in 2020. The United States Patent and Trademak Office (USPTO) responded that there was a conflict with the 2018-registered Glyd mark in connection with a range of transportation services.
After investigating, Glydways said the validity of Glyd’s registration was doubtful because, among other things, Glyd’s website was inactive, its mobile app may no longer have been downloadable, and there was no evidence that the transportation services listed in its registration were ever offered. Furthermore, Glydways determined that the first use date of the mark claimed by Glyd was “clearly fraudulent” since it pre-dated the defendant’s corporate existence by almost three years.
On Aug. 31, 2021, Glydways filed a petition for cancellation of Glyd’s registration, the current status of which is unclear from the complaint.
In response to Glyd’s December 2022 letter, Glydway’s counsel argued that Glyd’s position and arguments are without merit. The complaint claims that there is a justiciable controversy before the District of Delaware court as to whether Glydway’s conduct constitutes trademark infringement or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and whether Glyd owns valid trademark rights in relation to transportation services under the claimed class.
The plaintiff seeks a declaration of its own non-infringement as well as one of Glyd’s abandonment of its own mark. “Absent a declaration to this effect, Defendant will continue to wrongfully allege that Plaintiff’s transportation services advertised or sold under Plaintiff’s Mark infringe Defendant’s alleged trademark rights, thereby causing Plaintiff irreparable injury and damage,” the filing concludes.
The suit also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs. Glydways is represented by VLP Law Group LLP.
