Global Printing, which runs the MYTHOS donor platform, alleges Anthropic's Mythos AI model infringes its registered mark

The complaint

Global Printing, Inc., dba MYTHOS v. Anthropic, PBC, No. 1:26-cv-03756 (E.D. Va.), is an 11-page complaint filed November 13, 2026, ECF No. 1, with a jury demand. The complaint describes Global Printing as a Virginia corporation based in Alexandria, Virginia, that operates an eponymous software platform that helps nonprofit institutions engage with their donors, and Anthropic as a Delaware public benefit company based in San Francisco, California. It says Global Printing was formed in 1979 as a commercial printer, formally launched Mythos as a software platform for donor relations in October 2015, and has used the MYTHOS brand as the name of its platform ever since.

The mark

The complaint relies on U.S. Reg. No. 6,140,016 for MYTHOS, which it says issued in International Class 42 and has become incontestable under Section 15 of the Lanham Act. USPTO status records show MYTHOS as a live standard character service mark registered on the Principal Register on September 1, 2020, owned by Global Printing Inc., a Virginia corporation, for these Class 42 services: "Software as a Service (SAAS) services featuring software for creating customizable, searchable databases of information and software for collecting, storing, managing, manipulating, editing, tagging, and sharing user-generated content; Software as a Service (SAAS) services featuring software that enables users to create customizable surveys to facilitate and enhance marketing of content to target audiences." The records list first use in October 2015 and show that a combined Sections 8 and 15 declaration has been accepted and acknowledged.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint says Global Printing was an early adopter of AI, eventually chose Anthropic as its partner to deliver agentic workflows for company clients, and promoted its use of Anthropic's Claude as the AI platform powering the Mythos platform "based on Anthropic's claimed ethical approach to business." It alleges that on April 7, 2026, Anthropic previewed an AI model it branded Mythos, after a draft blog post disclosing the name was inadvertently made public in March 2026, and that Anthropic has since released successively more advanced versions of the model it now markets under the MYTHOS brand, most recently Mythos 5.2 on November 9, 2026. It alleges that both parties' Mythos platforms are software as a service platforms and that, with two companies offering AI-related SaaS platforms under identical service marks, "confusion is not only likely to result, it has already happened."

The complaint alleges that on June 8, 2026, Anthropic filed two applications to register CLAUDE MYTHOS, one in Class 9 and one in Class 42, and that on October 20, 2026, the USPTO refused each application under Section 2(d) in nonfinal office actions citing Global Printing's registration. It describes Anthropic as "a mature, highly sophisticated business and one of the largest AI companies in existence," says Anthropic recently confirmed its plan to launch an initial public offering on November 19, 2026, with a fully diluted IPO valuation of approximately $1.4 trillion, and says Anthropic is advised by highly regarded law firms. Citing Anthropic's relative sophistication, Global Printing says it is informed and believes that Anthropic's trademark counsel ran trademark searches before the public launch that revealed the registration, and that Anthropic was therefore aware that Global Printing was already using MYTHOS and that an identical or virtually identical mark would cause confusion.

The claims

• First claim: federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), alleging that Anthropic's infringement was knowing, willful, and deliberate.
• Second claim: federal unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

Relief requested

Global Printing asks that Anthropic account for and pay all damages Global Printing suffered and account for and disgorge all gains, profits, and advantages derived from the conduct described; that the damages be trebled under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 because, it says, Anthropic's unfair acts were done intentionally and warrant enhanced damages and/or punitive damages as the court may find appropriate; a permanent injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 barring Anthropic and its affiliates, franchises, and subsidiaries from using the registered MYTHOS mark or any colorable imitation or confusingly similar variation of it, making any other infringing use of it, or otherwise competing unfairly with Global Printing; attorneys' fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and other relief the court deems equitable, just, and appropriate.