Anthropic USA representatives fail to appear in Belagavi court in brand name case

Representatives of Anthropic PBC, a USA based AI company, failed to appear in the Belagavi district court on February 16 in connection with a case filed by Anthropic Software Private Limited, a local IT company that has accused the American company of using the same name.

The Principal District and Commercial Court issued fresh summons to officers in the US-based company’s Bengaluru headquarters directing them to appear in court on March 9.

Judge Manjunath Naik issued an order to send suit summons to Irina Ghose, Managing Director of Anthropic India Private Limited, at its office in Domlur in Bengaluru.

The court officers noted that the court had issued notices to Anthropic PBC’s USA office in San Francisco when the case was filed in January 2026. However, at that time, the company did not have an India office. Later, Anthropic PBC opened an office in Bengaluru, after filing for and getting a registration certificate from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla, petitioner, told reporters in Belagavi on February 16 that his company, Anthropic Software Private Limited, was incorporated in 2017, much before the incorporation of Anthropic in USA, which happened in 2021. He showed copies of the incorporation certificate. He has sought protection of his company’s name under various Indian laws.

“We have prayed to the court for a permanent injunction that will make the USA company stop using the name Anthropic online and offline. We have proprietary rights over the name, and prior usage of the brand for our IT products,” he said.

Mr. Mulla, a IT engineer with prior work experience in the USA, said that due to the confusion over the name, his Belagavi-based company is suffering huge losses daily. “All our search results and internet traffic is being directed towards the US company.” Mr. Mulla, who has four Indian patents on wifi monetisation, driving safety and integration of AI in classroom teaching, said he was facing difficulty raising investment and protecting his online content from infringement.

Bahubali Dhanwade, his advocate, said that the case was filed based on principles of previous usage, violation of rules regarding brand name protection, passing off and protection of rights under registration rules, among others.