Additional District and Session Judge, hence, directed Mohammad Ayyaz A Mulla, director of the Belagavi firm, which has filed the trademark suit, to file its objection to the application.

Mulla, in his trademark suit, stated that his firm, Anthropic Software, 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. He alleged that the US company has deliberately used a deceptively similar mark, causing confusion and unfair competition.

The US company stated that its mark, ‘Anthropic’, has acquired tremendous reputation, goodwill and trans-border reputation in India, and its goods and services have also acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in India.

It pointed out that the Belgavi firm has been reportedly using the name ‘Anthropic’ since 2017, but has applied for its registration on October 18, 2025 — about 10-days after the US company made a public announcement of its entry into the Indian market. “This clearly vitiates its bona fides,” the US firm submitted.

Anthropic PBC, in the application also submitted that a “Plaintiff’s belated application for registration of ‘Anthropic’ mark is nothing, but a mere afterthought aimed at frustrating the operations and create a barrier for defendant’s legitimate entry into Indian market and the instant is filed with a sole intention of harassing the defendant (US-based Anthropic) allegedly make wrongful gains at the cost and expense of the defendant.”

‘Allegations of confusion are illusory’

Rejecting the allegations of the Belagavi startup that use of the ‘Anthropic’ mark by the defendant is ‘likely to cause damage, the US company argued that these allegations are entirely illusory and premised on mere apprehensions rather than demonstrable instances of actual confusion among the customers.

“In any case, it is not the plaintiff’s case that the Defendant Company is rendering/marketing or providing its goods and services in Belagavi which may lead to confusion to its customers in Belagavi,” the plea stated.

Mulla says he suffered business loss

Mulla, in his trademark suit, has 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.

He 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.

It is also 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

Further, Mulla has claimed that he 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 crore and that it is entitled to the claimed damages.