Autodesk spent over two years building its Flow brand for visual effects and production management software. Then Google launched an identically named AI filmmaking tool and, according to Autodesk’s complaint, did so after providing assurances it wouldn’t.
On February 6, 2026, Autodesk filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of California against Google, alleging the tech giant hijacked the Flow name for its competing AI video creation platform. The San Francisco-based software company announced Flow at Autodesk University in September 2022, positioning it as a cloud platform connecting workflows across visual effects, animation, and game development. Google launched its own Flow on May 20, 2025 at Google I/O, targeting the exact same professional customers with AI-powered filmmaking tools.
The complaint contains a striking allegation: Google allegedly assured Autodesk it would not commercialize the Flow name, then filed a trademark application in the Kingdom of Tonga before pursuing US protection. Tonga’s trademark system does not make applications publicly accessible, a detail that becomes significant when examining Google’s filing strategy.
The commercial stakes dwarf typical trademark disputes. Autodesk carries a market capitalization of approximately $51 billion. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is valued at roughly $3.9 trillion. That 76-to-1 size disparity means Autodesk is fighting a competitor with resources to wage prolonged legal battles while continuing to market its Flow product aggressively.
The Trademark Priority Battle and the Tonga Strategy
Trademark rights in the United States generally belong to whoever uses a mark in commerce first. Autodesk claims it began using Flow in September 2022. Google launched its Flow product in May 2025, nearly three years later. On timing alone, Autodesk appears to hold priority.
But Google’s alleged Tonga strategy complicates the picture. Under the Paris Convention, a company that files a trademark application in one member country can claim that filing date as a priority date when applying in other countries, provided they file within six months. The catch: Tonga is a Paris Convention member, but its trademark office does not publish applications publicly. A company filing in Tonga gains up to six months of secrecy before anyone discovers the application exists.
According to the complaint, Google filed its Flow trademark in Tonga the same month it launched the product, then used that Tonga filing as the basis for US trademark protection. If true, this means Google deliberately chose a jurisdiction that would hide its trademark intentions from competitors. The alleged assurance that Google would not commercialize the name, followed by a filing designed for secrecy, could support arguments of bad faith.
The likelihood of confusion analysis favors Autodesk’s position. Both companies target film and video professionals. Both offer tools for production workflows. A VFX supervisor searching for “Flow” production software could reasonably encounter either product and assume a connection between them. When I help clients conduct a thorough trademark clearance search before launch, identifying exactly this kind of overlap is the goal.
AI Filmmaking Tools and the Battle for Brand Recognition
The AI video generation market has exploded into a battleground where Google, Adobe, Runway, and Pika Labs compete for creative professionals. Google’s Flow combines three AI models: Veo for video generation, Imagen for images, and Gemini for text prompting. The platform enables filmmakers to generate, edit, and refine video content using AI assistance. At the January 2026 Sundance Film Festival, Google premiered “Dear Upstairs Neighbors,” an AI-animated short demonstrating Flow’s capabilities to an audience of industry decision-makers.
Autodesk’s Flow serves a different but adjacent function. Flow Production Tracking, formerly known as ShotGrid, manages assets, schedules, and reviews across VFX and animation pipelines. Flow Capture handles digital dailies. These tools don’t generate AI video, but they sit in the same professional workflows where Google now wants to establish its brand.
The convergence creates real confusion potential. A film producer evaluating production management tools and AI generation tools will encounter “Flow” in both contexts. As Google’s own extensive trademark portfolio demonstrates, the company understands brand differentiation. Choosing a name already established in the same industry raises questions about due diligence, especially from a company with resources to conduct exhaustive clearance searches.
For Autodesk, losing control of the Flow name means competing against a $3.9 trillion company’s marketing budget for brand recognition in their own customer base. Every dollar Google spends promoting Flow dilutes Autodesk’s brand equity built since 2022.
Professional software purchasing decisions often start with search queries. A studio evaluating production tracking tools searches for “Flow production software” and encounters Google’s AI video generator alongside Autodesk’s project management suite. Even if they ultimately find the right product, the confusion wastes time and creates uncertainty about which company stands behind which tool. In B2B software markets where deals can reach six or seven figures, that confusion carries real commercial consequences.
Protecting Software Brands Before Competitors Arrive
Autodesk’s situation illustrates a timing problem that affects many software companies. They announced Flow in September 2022 and rebranded their ShotGrid product to Flow Production Tracking in March 2024. The gap between announcement and formal rebranding created a window where the Flow name existed in the market but may not have been fully protected across all product categories.
Prompt filing of trademark applications after brand launch creates documented priority. The USPTO application date becomes evidence of when you claimed rights in a mark. Waiting to file, even while actively using the brand, leaves room for competitors to establish their own claims. Autodesk’s complaint emphasizes their 2022 first use date, but the strength of that claim depends on documentation of commercial use during the intervening years.
Proving first use requires more than press releases and announcements. Courts look for evidence of actual commercial transactions: invoices, contracts, customer communications, marketing materials distributed to real customers. Screenshots of product pages with timestamps, dated promotional emails, and sales records all help establish the timeline. When a dispute emerges years later, companies that maintained organized records have a significant advantage over those reconstructing history from memory.
Common words like “flow” present particular trademark challenges. Dictionary terms can function as trademarks when they acquire distinctiveness through use, but they face higher scrutiny at the USPTO and greater likelihood of conflicts with other users. Multiple software products already use “flow” in their names across different categories. Choosing common words means accepting ongoing enforcement battles.
When I advise technology companies on brand strategy, I emphasize investing in ongoing trademark protection and monitoring from the start. Catching a potential conflict when a competitor files an application costs far less than litigation after they’ve launched a product and built market presence. Autodesk’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but even a favorable judgment won’t erase the brand confusion Google created during the months or years this case takes to resolve.
Protecting Your Software Brand
Whether you’re launching AI-powered software, creative tools, or any technology product, establishing trademark rights before competitors can claim the same brand space is critical. The Autodesk-Google dispute shows how even industry veterans can find themselves in expensive litigation when brand names collide in emerging markets.
My practice focuses on helping software companies and technology businesses secure trademark protection before conflicts arise. I conduct clearance searches to identify potential obstacles, prepare USPTO applications that establish your priority date, and develop monitoring strategies to catch potential infringement early. When you’re building a brand in a competitive technology space, understanding your trademark position before launch can prevent the kind of battle Autodesk now faces.
If your company is developing software, AI tools, or technology products and you want to understand your trademark options, contact me for a consultation. The cost to establish and protect your brand early is a fraction of what trademark litigation costs.
