When Giants Stumble: How Anthropic’s India Ambition Hit a $110,000 Roadblock

Anthropic’s high-profile expansion into India has hit a significant legal snag, as a local software company named Anthropic Software, operating since 2017, filed a complaint claiming prior trademark rights and customer confusion due to the U.S. AI giant’s recent market entry. The Indian firm is seeking formal recognition and damages, spotlighting a critical clash between global tech ambitions and local business sovereignty. This dispute underscores the complex challenges Western AI companies face as they rush into fast-growing markets like India, where they must navigate not only fierce competition but also pre-existing legal claims and the nuanced dynamics of a market championing its own “AI for All” vision and homegrown entrepreneurs.

When Giants Stumble: How Anthropic’s India Ambition Hit a $110,000 Roadblock  

The appointment of a high-profile industry veteran, the launch of a strategic Bengaluru office, and meetings with the nation’s top leadership—all seemed to signal a flawless entry for U.S. AI giant Anthropic into one of the world’s most promising markets. Yet, beneath this polished expansion, a seven-year-old software company in Karnataka was preparing a legal challenge that would spotlight a critical, often-overlooked pitfall of global tech colonialism: the clash with local incumbents. 

This is the story of Anthropic’s ambitious India expansion colliding with a local firm that already had the name, a dispute that transcends a simple trademark tussle to reveal the intricate dance between global ambition and local identity in the world’s fastest-growing internet market. 

The Claim of the Firstcomer 

At the heart of the conflict is Anthropic Software, an Indian company founded by Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla. According to a complaint filed in a commercial court in Karnataka in January 2026, this firm has operated under the “Anthropic” name since 2017—four years before the American AI safety startup was even founded. 

For Mulla, the sudden arrival of a global behemoth sharing his company’s name was not a windfall but a disruption. He reported growing customer confusion, forcing him to seek legal clarity. His demands are precise: formal recognition of his company’s prior use, court relief to prevent further market confusion, and ₹10 million (approximately $110,000) in damages. 

“As of now, I am exercising my legal right as it’s causing huge confusion to my customers,” Mulla told TechCrunch, emphasizing that litigation was a fallback after attempts at clean coexistence failed. In January 2026, the court issued a notice to the U.S.-based Anthropic but declined an interim injunction, setting the next hearing for February 16. 

Two Anthropics: A Study in Contrast 

The following table highlights the stark differences between the two entities now vying for the same name in India: 

India: The Global AI Battleground 

This legal skirmish unfolds on a much larger battlefield. India, with its population of over 1.4 billion and one of the world’s fastest-growing internet user bases, has become an indispensable market for AI companies. It’s already Anthropic’s second-largest market for Claude.ai, with nearly half of all usage focused on technical and mathematical tasks. 

Anthropic’s expansion moves have been strategic and high-profile. In October 2025, the company announced its India office. Shortly after, it appointed Irina Ghose, former Managing Director of Microsoft India, to lead its operations. Ghose, in a LinkedIn post, highlighted the opportunity to shape how AI is deployed at scale in India, focusing on trust, safety, and impact across diverse languages and communities. 

This push mirrors aggressive moves by rivals. OpenAI has introduced low-cost plans for India and plans a Delhi office. The competition is so intense that India’s telecom giants have become critical gatekeepers, with Reliance Jio bundling Google’s Gemini and Airtel partnering with Perplexity. 

Beyond a Legal Dispute: Geopolitics and “AI for All” 

The trademark clash is a microcosm of a larger geopolitical struggle. As AI emerges as a defining element of national power, there is a risk of entrenching new global hierarchies. Currently, North America, China, and Europe are projected to capture over 84% of the $15.7 trillion AI is expected to add to the global economy by 2030. 

India is positioning itself to challenge this concentration. Through its “AI for All” vision and leadership roles in forums like the G20 and BRICS, it aims to champion a development-oriented approach for the Global South. The government is investing heavily, with the IndiaAI Mission deploying 38,000 GPUs and establishing 600 AI Data Labs to build foundational capacity. 

The upcoming AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, where Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei is scheduled to appear alongside leaders like Sam Altman and Sundar Pichai, symbolizes this ambition. It’s a stage for India to shift the global conversation from vision to action, advocating for equitable access to compute, data, and governance influence. 

The Road Ahead: Coexistence, Conquest, or Compromise? 

The court’s upcoming decision will hinge on nuanced interpretations of India’s Trademarks Act, 1999, which recognizes prior usage rights. Legal experts see several potential resolutions: 

• Coexistence Agreement: A negotiated settlement allowing both entities to use the name with clear, differentiated branding. 

• Licensing Deal: The U.S. Anthropic could license the trademark from the Indian firm, a common corporate solution. 

• Rebranding: One party, most likely the smaller local firm, might change its name, though this becomes harder after years of operation. 

• Full Legal Resolution: The court could award exclusive rights to one party based on evidence of usage, registration, and market impact. 

For global startups, this case is a stark lesson in expansion due diligence. It echoes past conflicts, like Apple paying $60 million for the ‘iPad’ trademark in China. Thorough trademark searches, proactive international registration, and budgeting for legal contingencies are not optional—they are critical to a global roadmap. 

The Bigger Picture 

The Anthropic-Anthropic Software dispute is more than a legal footnote. It encapsulates the tension at the heart of today’s global tech expansion. For India, it tests a system striving to protect homegrown entrepreneurs while welcoming foreign investment and innovation. For global AI giants, it is a reminder that in the rush to claim the future, they must still respect the foundations laid by local players who were there first. 

The outcome will resonate beyond a courtroom in Karnataka. It will signal how a rising tech superpower navigates the complex interplay between global ambition and local identity, setting a precedent for every AI firm eyeing the vast, vibrant, and now contentious Indian market.