[madamelic]

To potentially save you some headache, take a look at serverless.com and weigh the likelihood they come after you about that name if you are planning on making this a business.

(And yes, I hate their name too. I don't honestly know how defendable an entire technology term actually is. It also results in terrible Googling.)

[hn_throwaway_99]

IANAL, but since "Serverless, Inc." chose a generic term for their trademark, usually this means only very specific instances of that mark are enforceable, e.g. "Serverless Framework", "serverless.com" and "Serverless, Inc." But if a company were to say "We make it really easy to use serverless technologies in the cloud!" (note lower case s), that shouldn't be infringing because it's just using serverless as a generic, descriptive term.

"ServerlessAI" and "serverlessai.dev" shouldn't be infringing because they incorporate the generic term in their mark, not the Serverless Framework-specific term. Of course, this means that ServerlessAI would have the same issues you point out - a less-defensible mark and poor Google results.

Also, in the US pretty much anyone can sue for anything, so even if you're in the right it can be an expensive headache to have to defend yourself.

[HeavenFox]

Thank you both! In a way this could be a nice problem to have - attracting the attention of BigCo means we are big enough right ;) But yes, we will definitely be prepared for that possibility!

[sleepybrett]

Nice problem to have if you happen to be serverlessai's lawyers, if you happen to be serverlessai's investors, probably not.