Anthropic PB admits to having an Indian subsidiary, contradicts earlier stand in court

Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla, founder of Belagavi-based Anthropic Softwares Private Limited, has questioned US-based artificial intelligence company Anthropic PBC for the use of the name ‘Anthropic’..

A legal dispute over the use of the name ‘Anthropic’ has taken a new turn after US-based artificial intelligence company Anthropic PBC acknowledged in the Belagavi Commercial Court that a wholly owned subsidiary operates in India.

Anthropic versus Anthro

Anthropic India says it is different from U.S. entity

Anthropic India is distinct from U.S.-based firm, counsel tells court

Belagavi-based Anthropic Softwares Private Limited has claimed to have registered the name of the company and brand much before the US-based firm, and has challenged the use of the company’s name by the American entity.

“In a written statement filed in the court, the company stated that Irina Ghose is the managing director of the India entity. This development raises questions about corporate conduct and the positions taken during the proceedings,” said Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla, Managing Director of Belagavi-based Anthropic Softwares Private Limited.

“For over 10 months, Anthropic India Private Limited resisted being impleaded in the case, maintaining that it was a separate legal entity and disputing the existence of a cause of action against it. More significantly, in an objection supported by an affidavit on oath, its Managing Director, Irina Ghose, denied that Anthropic India was directly or indirectly promoting Anthropic PBC’s business, calling the allegation baseless and requiring strict proof.

“Anthropic PBC’s subsequent written statement refers to its wholly owned Indian subsidiary and identifies Ms. Ghose as its managing director. We want to ask whether these positions, considered together, reflected the transparency and professional ethics expected of a global technology company. He said the court should examine whether procedural objections were being used to delay consideration of the core dispute over prior use of the ‘Anthropic’ name.”

Mr. Mulla alleged that repeated misdirected emails intended for Anthropic PBC had reached his company despite regular notifications, creating business disruption, brand confusion, and potential data-security risk, including the possibility of sensitive communications reaching unintended recipients. He said the continuing problem raised serious questions about whether customer confidentiality and corrective action were receiving adequate attention. He urged the US company to demonstrate its belief in corporate ethics through its behaviour.