As global AI giant Anthropic ambitiously expands its presence in India, a sudden legal dispute has cast a shadow over its efforts. According to TechCrunch, a local Indian software company named "Anthropic Software" has filed a lawsuit with the Karnataka Business Court, accusing the American AI unicorn of trademark infringement.
The local company claims that it has been using the name "Anthropic" since 2017, and recent market activities by the American Anthropic have caused significant confusion among its customers. As a result, the plaintiff is requesting the court to recognize its prior usage rights and seek compensation of 10 million rupees (approximately 110,000 US dollars) for economic losses. The court has issued a subpoena to the American Anthropic, but has not yet approved a temporary injunction. The case is expected to be heard again on February 16th.
As one of the fastest-growing internet markets globally, India has become a battleground for AI giants. To deepen its presence, Anthropic announced the establishment of an Indian office in October of last year and recently hired Irina Ghose, former managing director of Microsoft India, to lead operations. Despite the legal challenges, CEO Dario Amodei still plans to attend the upcoming AI summit in Delhi next week. This "name duplication" controversy highlights the trademark compliance risks faced by tech giants during global expansion, as well as the direct competition between local companies and international giants in protecting their brand moats.
Key Points:
⚖️ Facing a Trademark Lawsuit: The Indian local company Anthropic Software claims that it has been using the name since 2017, accusing the American Anthropic of infringement and seeking compensation of millions of rupees.
🇮🇳 Focusing on the Indian Market: Anthropic is accelerating its presence in India, including setting up an office and hiring a former Microsoft executive to manage operations, considering it a key battlefield after Europe and the US.
📅 Subsequent Legal Developments: The court has currently rejected the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction, maintaining the status quo and requiring both parties to appear in court again on February 16th.
