Karnataka firm drags US AI major Anthropic to court over name dispute
A commercial court in Karnataka has issued fresh summons to US-based artificial intelligence company Anthropic in a trademark infringement case filed by a local tech firm over the shared use of the name “Anthropic.”
The case was initiated by Anthropic Software Private Limited, which approached the Commercial Division of the District Court in Belagavi. The Indian company alleges that the US AI giant’s branding has led to marketplace confusion, misrepresentation, and erosion of its established identity in India.
The court has now summoned the US firm’s representatives to appear on March 9 after there was no appearance at the previous hearing on February 16.
Claim of prior use
Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla, founder and director of Anthropic Software, maintains that his company has operated under the “Anthropic” name since 2017—well before the US AI startup was founded in 2021. “We are the prior user of the brand name,” Mulla said, asserting that his firm uses anthropic.in as its official domain and is consistently identified as “Anthropic” across client communications and social media platforms.
He argued that search engine results primarily direct users to anthropic.com, the website of the US company, which he claims has impacted his firm’s digital visibility and business opportunities.
The Karnataka-based company works on digital solutions across education, connectivity, and road safety. It has previously received recognition from the state government for developing QuickTunes, a platform aimed at reducing deaths caused by distracted driving.
Expansion backdrop
The dispute coincides with the US-based Anthropic’s growing footprint in India. The company recently opened an office in Bengaluru—its second Asian base after Tokyo—and announced multiple partnerships across sectors. India has become one of the fastest-growing markets for its AI assistant Claude, with the company stating that its India revenue run-rate has doubled since announcing expansion plans in October 2025.
As both entities assert rights over the same brand identity, the case highlights the growing complexity of trademark conflicts in the global technology sector.
Comments are closed.