Karnataka Court Issues Fresh Summons to US AI Firm Anthropic in Trademark Dispute
Belagavi Court Directs Notice to Bengaluru Office After No Appearance
Belagavi: A commercial court in Karnataka’s Belagavi has issued fresh summons to US-based artificial intelligence company Anthropic PBC in a trademark infringement suit filed by a local firm over the use of the name “Anthropic.”
The order was passed on Monday by Principal District and Sessions Judge Manjunath Nayak after representatives of the American AI company failed to appear before the court on February 16, despite having been served an earlier summons.
The case has drawn attention as it involves a dispute between a Karnataka-based software company and a globally recognised AI firm planning expansion in India.
Indian Firm Claims Prior Use Since 2017
The suit has been filed by Belagavi-based Anthropic Softwares Private Ltd, which has alleged that the US company’s use of the mark “Anthropic” violates its trademark rights.
According to the complaint, the Indian company claims it has been operating under the name “Anthropic” since 2017 and has built substantial goodwill in the Indian subcontinent.
The plaintiff has sought a temporary injunction restraining the US entity from directly or indirectly passing itself off as being associated with the Indian firm by using the mark “Anthropic” or any deceptively similar name.
In its filing, the Indian company argued that online searches and AI-based platform suggestions prominently display the American company’s name in place of its own, allegedly causing confusion among users, clients and stakeholders.
“As a consequence, the plaintiff’s name has been completely removed or displaced from search suggestions and related results,” the suit contended, adding that this has misled users into believing that the US company is linked to or has replaced the Indian entity.
Court Declines Ex Parte Injunction
Earlier, on January 17, 2026, the court allowed the suit to be filed without mandatory pre-institution mediation, noting that urgent interim relief had been sought.
However, the court declined to grant an ex parte temporary injunction at that stage. It observed that apart from two publications — including a newspaper report about the American firm’s plans to open its first office in India and a website announcement stating Bengaluru operations would begin in early 2026 — there was no material evidence to establish that the US company had commenced operations in India using the disputed mark.
The court further noted that the address of the defendant mentioned in the cause title was located in San Francisco, suggesting that no Indian establishment had been operational at the time of filing.
On this basis, the court held that there was no immediate or imminent threat warranting an ex parte injunction.
Fresh Summons to Bengaluru Office
Despite declining interim relief, the court issued notice on the interim application and sent summons to the US company.
As no representatives appeared at the latest hearing, the court has now ordered fresh summons to be issued to the officers of the company at its newly opened Bengaluru office.
The matter is expected to be listed for further hearing after service of summons is completed.
Broader Implications for Tech Expansion in India
The case highlights the increasing complexity of trademark disputes in the technology and AI sector, particularly when global firms expand into jurisdictions where similar names may already be in use.
As India continues to emerge as a major AI and technology hub, legal scrutiny over brand identity and intellectual property rights is likely to intensify. Courts are increasingly being called upon to balance established local claims with the global presence of multinational corporations.
For now, the dispute remains at an early procedural stage, with substantive arguments yet to be examined.
Our Final Thoughts
This case underscores how India’s growing AI ecosystem is intersecting with intellectual property law in new and complex ways. As global tech giants expand into India, legacy domestic entities are asserting prior rights, testing the boundaries of trademark enforcement in a digital-first economy. The Belagavi court’s measured approach — refusing immediate relief yet ensuring due process — reflects judicial caution in cases involving cross-border technology players. The outcome could set an important precedent for how Indian courts handle brand disputes involving multinational AI companies entering the domestic market.