Back
Belagavi Court Refuses Ex-Parte Injunction Against Anthropic in Trademark Suit, Issues Summons
Introduction
The has permitted an Indian company to file a commercial suit against US-based Anthropic PBC without mandatory due to the urgency of sought interim relief. However, Principal District and Sessions Judge Manjunath Nayak denied an restraining Anthropic from using the mark "Anthropic," finding no . The court issued summons to the defendant, returnable by .
Case Background
An Indian company, holding a registered trademark for "Anthropic," filed Commercial Original Suit No. 02/2026 alleging and by Anthropic PBC, a San Francisco-based AI firm. The dispute arose from two publications: a newspaper article dated announcing Anthropic's first India office, and a website post about global operations expanding to Bengaluru in . The plaintiff sought urgent interim relief via IA No. 2 to prevent the defendant from using deceptively similar marks, alongside IA No. 1 to waive under . No evidence showed the defendant had begun operations in India.
Arguments Presented
The plaintiff contended there was a risk of based on the publications, urging an ex-parte injunction to protect its registered mark. Supported by the plaint, affidavit, and documents, it argued the announcements signaled imminent use of the "Anthropic" mark in India.
The defendant had not yet appeared, so no formal arguments were presented. However, the court examined the plaintiff's materials and noted the absence of proof beyond the two publications that Anthropic had commenced operations or established a presence in India. The plaintiff's cause title listed the defendant only at a San Francisco address, underscoring no local setup.
Legal Analysis
The court allowed IA No. 1, recognizing the suit's urgent interim relief needs under Section 12A, exempting . For IA No. 2, it required an " " for , which was absent. Only announcements were shown, not actual operations or use of the mark. Decisions cited by the plaintiff applied post-notice, after hearing the defendant, and thus inapplicable at this ex-parte stage. No specific precedents on trademarks were invoked by the court, emphasizing of documents.
Key Observations
-
"Except these 02, there are no other materials to show that the defendants are intending to start their operation in India by using the registered trade mark of the plaintiff."
-
"The plaintiff has shown the defendant's address as 'San Francisco US in the cause title of the plaint, which indicate that the defendants have not yet started their establishment or opened their office in India."
-
"In order to grant an exparte order of temporary injunction, by dispensing with notice to the defendant, there should be
or violation. In this case, at this stage I have not found any such imminent threat."
Court's Decision
IA No. 1 was allowed, permitting the suit without mediation. IA No. 2 was not granted ex-parte; instead, emergent notice and suit summons were issued to Anthropic PBC abroad, per guidelines circulated by the . This sets a threshold for in trademark cases, requiring evidence of immediate harm beyond announcements. Future suits may need stronger proof of local operations for urgent injunctions without notice, balancing plaintiff protections with defendant rights.
