In a lawsuit that underscores the intensifying competition in the artificial intelligence software arena, Autodesk Inc. has filed a trademark infringement complaint against Alphabet Inc.’s Google, alleging that the search and advertising giant deliberately exploited Autodesk’s brand name to divert customers toward its own AI-powered video generation tools. The case, filed in the Northern District of California, could set important precedents for how technology companies compete — and advertise — in the rapidly expanding market for AI-assisted creative software.

The dispute centers on Google’s advertising practices, specifically the use of Autodesk’s trademarked names in paid search campaigns. According to the complaint, Google purchased keyword advertisements tied to Autodesk’s well-known product names, including its flagship design and video software brands, so that users searching for Autodesk products would instead be served Google’s own AI video tools prominently in search results. Autodesk argues this constitutes a deliberate effort to trade on its established reputation and siphon away potential customers at a critical juncture in the AI software market, as reported by CDR News.

A Calculated Play in the AI Video Software Market

Autodesk, the San Francisco-based company best known for AutoCAD and a suite of design, engineering, and entertainment software products, has been investing heavily in integrating artificial intelligence capabilities into its offerings. The company views AI-assisted video creation and editing as a natural extension of its decades-long dominance in computer-aided design and 3D modeling. Google, meanwhile, has been aggressively marketing its own generative AI tools, including video generation models that compete directly with products Autodesk either offers or is developing.

The lawsuit alleges that Google’s conduct goes beyond ordinary competitive advertising. Autodesk claims that Google specifically targeted its trademarked terms — names that carry significant brand equity built over more than 40 years — to create confusion among consumers. When a professional designer or engineer searches for an Autodesk product by name, the complaint asserts, Google’s paid advertisements for its own competing AI tools appear at the top of search results in a manner designed to mislead users into believing there is an affiliation between the two companies, or to simply redirect their purchasing decisions before they ever reach Autodesk’s own website.

The Trademark Keyword Advertising Controversy

The practice of bidding on competitors’ trademarked terms in search advertising has been a contentious legal issue for more than a decade. Google itself has faced multiple lawsuits over its policy of allowing advertisers to bid on trademarked keywords. In the United States, courts have generally permitted the purchase of competitor trademarks as search keywords, provided the resulting advertisements do not create a likelihood of consumer confusion. However, the legal boundaries remain murky, and outcomes often depend on the specific facts of each case — including how the ads are displayed and whether they clearly identify the advertiser.

What makes Autodesk’s case particularly notable is the allegation that Google is not merely a neutral platform facilitating third-party keyword bidding, but is itself the entity purchasing and exploiting Autodesk’s trademarks to promote its own competing products. This dual role — as both the operator of the advertising platform and a direct competitor using that platform to its advantage — raises significant antitrust and trademark concerns that legal experts say could attract scrutiny from regulators already investigating Google’s market power in search and digital advertising.

Autodesk’s Brand Equity and the Stakes Involved

Autodesk’s trademark portfolio is among the most valuable in the technology sector. AutoCAD, Revit, Maya, and 3ds Max are industry-standard tools used by architects, engineers, filmmakers, and game developers worldwide. The company reported revenues of approximately $5.8 billion in its most recent fiscal year, and its products are deeply embedded in professional workflows across construction, manufacturing, and media and entertainment. Any erosion of brand recognition or customer trust could have outsized financial consequences.

Google’s own ambitions in generative AI have accelerated dramatically. The company’s DeepMind division has developed Veo, an AI video generation model, and Google has been integrating AI capabilities across its product suite, from Workspace to YouTube. The competition between established software incumbents and AI-native challengers has become one of the defining business stories of 2025, with billions of dollars in enterprise spending up for grabs as companies evaluate which platforms will power their creative and engineering workflows in the years ahead.

Legal Theories and Potential Remedies

Autodesk’s complaint reportedly advances claims under the Lanham Act, the primary federal statute governing trademark law in the United States. The company is seeking injunctive relief — a court order requiring Google to cease using Autodesk’s trademarks in its advertising campaigns — as well as monetary damages. If Autodesk can demonstrate that Google’s actions caused actual consumer confusion or were undertaken in bad faith, the damages could be substantial, potentially including disgorgement of profits Google earned as a result of the allegedly infringing advertisements.

Legal analysts note that the case could also implicate broader questions about Google’s responsibilities as a dominant search platform. If Google is found to have used its control over search results and advertising placement to disadvantage a competitor while simultaneously promoting its own products, the ruling could bolster ongoing antitrust cases against the company. The U.S. Department of Justice has already secured a landmark ruling finding that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search, and remedies in that case — which could include structural changes to Google’s business — are still being determined.

Industry Reaction and the Broader Competitive Dynamic

The lawsuit has drawn attention across the technology and legal communities. Industry observers note that Autodesk’s decision to take legal action reflects a growing willingness among established software companies to aggressively defend their intellectual property against Big Tech encroachment. As AI tools become more capable and begin to overlap with traditional software categories, disputes over branding, customer acquisition, and market positioning are expected to multiply.

Some trademark attorneys have pointed out that the case highlights a fundamental tension in digital advertising: the same company that controls the primary gateway to the internet — Google Search — also competes with the businesses that depend on that gateway to reach customers. This structural conflict of interest has been a recurring theme in regulatory proceedings around the world, from the European Union’s Digital Markets Act enforcement to ongoing investigations by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

What Comes Next for Both Companies

Google has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit in detail, though the company has historically defended its keyword advertising policies as pro-competitive, arguing that they give consumers more choices and relevant information. In past cases involving third-party keyword bidding, Google has maintained that its advertising platform includes safeguards against consumer confusion and that trademark holders have tools available to report and address misuse.

Autodesk, for its part, appears to be signaling that it will not tolerate what it views as unfair competitive practices, particularly as it makes significant investments in AI-powered tools. The company has been vocal about its AI strategy, recently unveiling new features powered by machine learning across its design and manufacturing software lines. Protecting the Autodesk brand as it enters new AI-driven markets is clearly a strategic priority.

The case is expected to proceed through discovery and potentially to trial, though settlements in trademark disputes of this nature are common. Regardless of the outcome, the litigation has already succeeded in drawing public attention to the competitive tactics being employed in one of the most consequential technology markets of the decade. For industry insiders, the Autodesk-Google dispute is a bellwether — a signal that the battle for dominance in AI-assisted creative software will be fought not only in product development labs, but also in federal courtrooms.

Sources: CDR News.