Belagavi Court Denies Urgent Restraint on Anthropic PBC, Says Media Reports Alone Don’t Establish Imminent Trademark Infringement

Belagavi Court Denies Urgent Restraint on Anthropic PBC, Says Media Reports Alone Don’t Establish Imminent Trademark Infringement

Introduction

In a trademark and passing off dispute, a Commercial Court in Belagavi refused to grant an ex parte temporary injunction against US-based AI company Anthropic PBC in a suit filed by Anthropic Softwares Private Limited. While declining interim relief at the ad-interim stage, the Court permitted the suit to proceed and issued summons to the defendant.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Anthropic Softwares Private Limited, a Belagavi-based company, instituted a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off in respect of the mark “ANTHROPIC.” The grievance arose from media reports and a website announcement indicating that Anthropic PBC was set to open its first office in India and commence operations in Bengaluru in early 2026.

Relying on these publications, the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s proposed entry into India under the identical mark would cause confusion in the IT services sector and dilute its registered trademark rights. It sought a temporary injunction restraining the US company from directly or indirectly passing itself off as being associated with the plaintiff by using the mark “Anthropic” or any deceptively similar mark.

Procedural Background

The suit was filed before the Commercial Court, Belagavi. The plaintiff simultaneously moved an application seeking urgent interim relief without notice to the defendant.

The Court, presided over by Principal District and Sessions Judge Manjunath Nayak, first allowed an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, permitting the plaintiff to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation on the ground that urgent interim relief had been sought.

However, after examining the plaint, affidavit, and accompanying documents, the Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction. It noted that the only material placed on record consisted of two publications, and there was no evidence demonstrating that the defendant had commenced operations in India or had used the impugned mark within Indian territory. The cause title showed the defendant’s address as San Francisco, suggesting that no Indian establishment had yet been set up.

Consequently, the Court issued summons and notice on the interim application to the defendant.

Parallel proceedings are also pending before the Trade Marks Registry, where the plaintiff has sought rectification/cancellation of registrations obtained by Anthropic PBC in Classes 42 and 9.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff had established an imminent threat of trademark infringement warranting grant of an ex parte temporary injunction?

2. Whether proposed entry into India, based solely on media reports and website announcements, constituted sufficient ground for ad-interim restraint?

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s imminent entry into India under the identical mark “ANTHROPIC” would result in consumer confusion, infringement of its registered trademark, and passing off. It argued that the similarity of marks and overlapping IT services sector heightened the likelihood of deception and irreparable harm.

Although the defendant had not yet appeared at the ex parte stage, the Court considered the material on record and observed that no evidence was placed to show actual use of the mark in India by the defendant. The mere existence of media reports and website announcements, without more, was found insufficient to demonstrate immediate infringement.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reiterated that an ex parte temporary injunction, granted without notice to the defendant, is an exceptional remedy and can only be justified where there is an imminent and demonstrable threat of infringement.

On the facts presented, the Court found no material indicating that Anthropic PBC had commenced operations in India or had used the mark in a manner infringing the plaintiff’s rights. The absence of evidence of actual commercial activity in India weighed against granting urgent ad-interim relief.

The Court observed that dispensing with notice is permissible only when delay would defeat the ends of justice. Since no immediate infringement was shown, it held that the matter required adjudication after hearing the defendant.

Accordingly, it declined to grant the ex parte injunction while keeping the plaintiff’s claims open for consideration upon hearing both sides.

Decision

The Commercial Court refused to grant an ex parte temporary injunction restraining Anthropic PBC from using the mark “ANTHROPIC.”

The Court allowed the suit to proceed, issued summons to the defendant, and listed the matter for further hearing. Parallel rectification proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry remain pending.