Calcutta High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. dismissed the interim application filed alleging selective discrimination, disparagement, dilution of its mark and unfair trade practice by the respondents. The Court held that the right to carry on trade or business is an inviolable right which cannot be dictated by a third party.
Background
The petitioner is engaged in an integrated electronic Business to Business portal and has been providing an internet-based platform since 1996 with free and paid listings for a wide variety of products. The platform IndiaMart is being used by millions of consumers to obtain access to suppliers for diverse products. The petitioner also enjoys registration of various trade marks in its favour including both word and label marks.
Respondent 1 originally named Open AI INC was established in 2015 for the purposes of building Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) having global outreach. ChatGPT is an online chat interface which allows users to interact with AI models in a conversational manner. The technology underlying ChatGPT allows users to submit inputs including text prompts and receive back content generated by software and servers which ChatGPT functions by utilising an engine known as “Large Language Model” (LLM) which ensures accuracy, appropriateness, safety and utility to users.
The case arose when the petitioner aggrieved by the alleged selective discrimination, being reflected in the responses generated by ChatGPT was practiced against the petitioner. This was causing pecuniary loss as it was directly interfering with the petitioner’s prospective business including deprivation of users in accessing the platform. The petitioner further alleged that the responses of ChatGPT demonstrate a deliberate intent to exclude the petitioner by making listings available on the petitioner’s platform inaccessible and unavailable though an active and working link is provided for other third-party platforms.
The petitioner complains of infraction of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and the Rules. In terms of Section (2)(1)(w) read with Section 79(2)(c), IT Act, ChatGPT is an intermediary and is obliged to act. The functions which ChatGPT performs as a search engine do not permit any kind of discrimination under Rule 3(1)(n), IT Rules, 2021.
The petitioner claims disparagement and dilution of its mark as well as unfair trade practice by the respondents. The users have a right to know of the existence of IndiaMart. He further specifies that the conduct of the ChatGPT is also in violation of the fundamental rights afforded to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Decision and Analysis
The Court observed that the right to carry on trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions is an inviolable right. The roots of this principle are to be found in the policy of laissez faire which governs the economic affairs of individuals and corporations. There is no law which can compel a private business to operate on terms and conditions dictated by a third party. In the absence of any contract or statute or constitutional obligation, there is no affirmative duty which the law imposes to benefit the economic interests of another. There is no such positive obligation which can be foisted on a party and there can be no question of assumption of responsibility.
The Court emphasised that the IT Act was drafted long before the advent of generative AI and its definition reflects a world where only humans or legal entities could “originate” messages. “Originator” as defined under Section 2(1)(za), IT Act means a person who sends, generates, stores or transmits any electronic message or causes any electronic message to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to any person but does not include an intermediary.
The Court held that here is also no cause of action which the petitioner has, even under the IT Act. The respondent is not an “intermediary” within the meaning of the Act. As a consequence, it has no obligation under the Rule (3)(1)(n), IT Rules. ChatGPT cannot also be described as a search engine. On the contrary, the response of ChatGPT is that of an “originator” as defined under Section 2(1)(za), IT Act. There is no violation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. There is no infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner has also been unable to demonstrate any cause of action either insofar as disparagement, trade libel or injurious falsehood is concerned.
The Court after considering the relevant provisions of the IT Act opined that the question of whether ChatGPT falls within the definition of an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) or an “originator” under Section 2(1)(za), IT Act is a complicated and vexed question of both law and fact. There is much debate on this aspect and the same can only be adjudicated upon at the final hearing of the suit after technical, scientific and expert evidence has been adduced. The obligation which is sought to be imposed on the respondents is prima facie neither just nor reasonable.
The Court reiterating the judgment of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. JSW Paints (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4949 held that there is no case of copyright infringement pleaded either in the plaint or the petition and all arguments made from the Bar were dehors the pleadings. The petitioner has also failed to identify any infringement of copyrighted work which makes it actionable. Specifying the judgment of the case Tech Plus Media (P) Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1819 the Court highlighted that there may be an element of unfairness but that is no wrong at all. One cannot cripple the respondents to do business in a manner which is most convenient to the petitioner.
The Court accentuated that if the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be granted, it would open the floodgates to litigation and would disrupt the functioning of ChatGPT. The fact that the link of the petitioner does not appear in the results shown by ChatGPT is not per se actionable.
The Court dismissed the application as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prima facie case in favour of orders being passed. It was further specified that there is nothing in the grievance of the petitioner which truly brings it under the rubric of an intellectual property dispute. There is no falsity nor deception nor confusion nor association nor publication by the respondents at all. In such circumstances, silence per se cannot constitute a cause of action. Prima facie, the petitioner has failed to disclose any vested legal right which has been infringed.
[Indiamart Inter Mesh Ltd. v. Open AI Inc., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on 20-5-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S. N. Mookherjee, Ranjan Bachawat, Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocates, S. K. Bajoria, Sourojit Dasgupta, Siddharth Banerjee, Dhruv Chaddha, Gargi Vasistha, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sudipto Sarkar, Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocates, Sanjeev Kapoor, Shounak Mitra, Nirupam Lodha, Madhav Khosla, Vaibhavi Pandey, Aman Khemka, Hardik Malik, Abhi Uday Singh Gautam, Advocates
