Belagavi startup vs global AI giant: Karnataka court orders summons to Anthropic’s US headquarters in Rs 1 crore trademark suit

Advocate Tejas C Shetty, representing Anthropic India Private Limited, argued that the summons had been served on Anthropic India Private Limited, a separate subsidiary, which cannot appear on behalf of the US-based defendant.

Advocate Satish L Karale, who represented Mulla, then informed the court that they would take appropriate steps at the next hearing. Following this, the court posted the matter for further hearing on March 24.

Mulla filed the suit on January 5, after he came across news reports, including in The Indian Express, about Anthropic PBC entering India and opening an office in Bengaluru.

Scope of work of Anthropic Software

Mulla said he started his company in 2017, and it has been recognised as a startup by the Centre and the Karnataka Government under the Startup India Programme. Mulla said Anthropic Software Private Limited and Anthropic PBC both operate in the same technology industry, and alleged that the US company deliberately adopted and used an identical name to benefit from its goodwill, reputation and market recognition in India.

Mulla stated that his company has developed platforms, including a Wi-Fi monetisation Platform—Driving Safety Solution—Competitive Exam Eco-System (Smart Books —Socratix & AI Platform) and an Education ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) Platform.

Mulla said his company has made substantial investments of financial, technical, and human resources toward the research, development, and deployment of the platforms, which he said are being utilised by a large and steadily increasing number of users. They are fundamentally rooted in addressing Indian societal needs, such as digital inclusion, educational equality, public safety, and infrastructure accessibility.

Mulla claimed that the US company’s name is being prominently suggested on AI-based platforms and standard Google search results in place of his firm’s name. As a consequence, his company’s name has been completely removed or displaced from search suggestions and related results.

Mulla said it has resulted in confusion among its users, customers, and stakeholders, who are being misled into believing that the defendant is associated with, or has replaced, the plaintiff. Such misrepresentation adversely affects the Plaintiff’s online visibility, brand identity, goodwill, and reputation, and causes serious prejudice to the Plaintiff’s business interests.

The defendant’s brand, including through the use of the mark “Anthropic,” is thereby creating significant confusion and deception not only in the Indian market but also in international markets. As a direct consequence, Mulla said he has suffered substantial loss of business, funding, and investment opportunities in both domestic and global markets.

The suit also contends that, if losses are to be computed, they would certainly not be less than Rs. 1,00,00,000, and that it is entitled to the claimed damages.

‘Intentionally chosen to use Anthropic mark’

The suit also claimed that the US-based company has deliberately used a deceptively similar mark, causing confusion amounting to passing off and unfair competition.

“The Defendants have intentionally chosen to use the “Anthropic” mark as the nature of the services they provide also falls under the research and technological services, which is the same industry sector as that of the Plaintiff’s and are allied and cognate to the Plaintiff’s services, if not identical. This is done with an intention to leverage the Anthropic brand’s goodwill to promote its own services, thereby misrepresenting the origin and quality of its services and also risking damage to the goodwill developed by the Anthropic brand,” it said.

The suit further claimed that both marks are spelt the same. In addition to visual similarity, the marks share phonetic identity.

Mulla, in his suit, contended that the defendant’s use of the impugned mark is likely to damage and dilute his company’s goodwill and reputation, as third parties may erroneously associate the defendant’s services with those of his.