A court in Belagavi has issued fresh summons to Anthropic PBC after the US-based firm failed to appear in a trademark dispute filed by a local company.
The case was initiated by Anthropic Softwares Private Limited following the American firm’s entry into the Indian market. On Monday, a commercial court in Belagavi issued new notices to representatives of Anthropic PBC over alleged trademark infringement involving the mark “ANTHROPIC.”
Principal District and Sessions Judge Manjunath Nayak had earlier directed the company to appear before the court, but no representative was present on February 16.
As a result, the court ordered fresh summons to be served on the company’s officials at its recently opened office in Bengaluru.
The Belagavi-based firm has accused the US company of passing off and trademark infringement, and sought a temporary injunction to prevent it from using the name “Anthropic” or any similar mark that could suggest an association.
The plaintiff stated that it has been using the name since 2017 and has built considerable goodwill in the Indian market. It also claimed that on AI platforms and Google searches, results related to the US firm appear prominently, pushing its own name out of visibility.
According to the company, this has caused confusion among users and stakeholders, who may believe that the Indian firm is linked to or replaced by the American entity.
The plaintiff relied on a newspaper report and a website announcement indicating that the US company planned to open its first Indian office and begin operations in Bengaluru in early 2026.
On January 17, 2026, the court allowed the suit to proceed without mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency of interim relief.
However, it refused to grant an ex parte injunction, noting that apart from two publications, there was no concrete evidence that the defendant had started operations in India using the plaintiff’s registered mark. The court also observed that the address mentioned in the case documents was in San Francisco, suggesting the absence of an established Indian office at that time.
Finding no immediate threat of infringement, the court declined interim relief but issued notices and summons to the US company.
Since no representative appeared at the latest hearing, the court took note of the Bengaluru office and directed that fresh summons be sent to that address.
