The case
Claimable Limited v. Claimable Inc., No. 2:25-cv-02048 WBS SCR (E.D. Cal.), is before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. The order describes the plaintiff as a London-based company that has sold claims management software services for businesses under the name CLAIMABLE on a monthly subscription since its first U.S. sale in 2013, and the defendant as a U.S.-based company that helps individuals appeal denials of insurance claims and began offering its services in October 2024. The plaintiff sued on July 22, 2025, alleging infringement of its claimed common-law service mark in the word CLAIMABLE under the Lanham Act and California law. The order is dated October 16, 2026 and was filed October 19, 2026.
Bona fide use
The court found no genuine dispute that the plaintiff made bona fide use of the mark in commerce, pointing to its website, more than 1,000 U.S. subscription transactions with invoices displaying the mark, and rising sales. It rejected the defendant's argument that a common-law owner must also prove market penetration to establish use, holding that under Ninth Circuit law the use in commerce standard is the same for common-law and registered marks, and that market penetration instead governs the geographic scope of rights. It declined to follow the Third Circuit's decision in Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. on this point.
No nationwide rights
The plaintiff claimed nationwide rights and conceded it could not win summary judgment if nationwide penetration were required. The court held that no reasonable juror could find nationwide penetration. It found it undisputed that, from 2013 until the defendant entered the market in October 2024, the plaintiff sold to no more than 54 unique U.S. customers, against a potential customer base the plaintiff could not cap. Those customers were in at most 26 states, with one customer in 12 of them and three or more in only eight. It noted about $504,997 in revenue over that period and rising sales, but found no evidence that the sales, growth, or advertising reached customers nationwide. The only advertising evidence from before October 2024 was a 2017 campaign with 6,247 impressions and 152 clicks, and the court found no evidence of where the people who saw it were located. The court declined, as too sweeping, the defendant's request to dismiss all claims with prejudice, saying the plaintiff may be able to show enforceable rights in some areas where the alleged infringement occurred.
The order
Because the plaintiff had not shown it was entitled to summary judgment on enforceability, the court did not reach its likelihood of confusion arguments. It denied the cross-motions on service mark rights and the plaintiff's motion on infringement, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g) treated bona fide use and the absence of nationwide enforceability as established in the case.