The Calcutta High Court has held that no private platform can, in the absence of a contractual, statutory, or constitutional obligation, be compelled to structure or deliver its service so as to provide visibility, promotion, or accessibility to another private party’s links for that party’s economic benefit. Mere omission to display a particular link, even if commercially disadvantageous to the aggrieved party, does not by itself constitute infringement of intellectual property rights, disparagement, dilution, or a violation of the Information Technology Act, 2000, unless the claimant establishes infringement of a substantive legal right recognized independently of the IT Rules.
The Court further held, prima facie, that generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, because they synthesize and generate new content rather than merely transmit or host third-party material, may fall closer to the concept of an “originator” than an “intermediary,” though that issue requires final determination on evidence. Accordingly, where the claimant shows only pure economic loss arising from non-display of its links and seeks an order that would compel the platform to operate in a particular manner, interim relief ought not to be granted.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur accepted, at least prima facie, the broader proposition that no private business can be compelled to operate on terms dictated by a third party, and that in the absence of any contract, statute, or constitutional obligation, the law does not generally impose an affirmative duty to advance the economic interests of another. It treated the petitioner’s alleged injury as one of pure economic loss, namely loss of user traffic translating into potential loss of profit, and observed that the petitioner was effectively seeking to dictate the manner in which ChatGPT should provide its service and display links for the petitioner’s benefit.
The Bench further observed that the respondents’ reliance on the USTR Report was an internal policy and business decision which was not justiciable in these proceedings, particularly in the absence of the USTR itself as a party. It also held that the petitioner’s grievance did not truly fall within the rubric of an intellectual property dispute, since there was no falsity, deception, confusion, association, or publication by the respondents. The Bench found that silence, by itself, could not constitute a cause of action; that no case of disparagement, trade libel, or injurious falsehood was made out because publication was missing; that dilution under section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 required use in the course of trade, which was absent; and that no actionable case of copyright infringement had been pleaded with particulars.
On the statutory issue, the Bench held that whether ChatGPT is an “intermediary” under section 2(1)(w) or an “originator” under section 2(1)(za) of the IT Act is a complicated question of law and fact requiring final adjudication with technical and expert evidence. However, prima facie, it observed that ChatGPT’s generative qualities, synthesis of responses, and role in creating new content brought it more within the scope of an “originator” than a mere passive intermediary or search engine, while also acknowledging that there was a substantial argument the other way because user prompts initiate the output.
The Bench ultimately held that, even assuming ChatGPT were an intermediary, the petitioner had failed to show breach of any positive obligation owed to it or infringement of any substantive legal right outside the IT Rules. It clarified that non-compliance with the IT Rules would at most affect entitlement to the safe harbour under section 79, but would not by itself establish a cause of action unless an independent substantive right was shown to have been violated.
The Bench also considered the balance of convenience and noted that any interim relief compelling visibility of IndiaMart links would resemble specific performance, require continuous supervision, and effectively grant final relief at the interim stage. It additionally recorded that the petitioner had itself earlier blocked ChatGPT from accessing its website. On that basis, the Bench found no prima facie case, and held that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also against the petitioner, leading to dismissal of the interim application.
Briefly, the dispute arises from an application for interim relief in a suit filed by IndiaMart Inter Mesh Limited before the Calcutta High Court for protection of its intellectual property rights. The petitioner stated that it operates a long-standing B2B online platform, IndiaMart, and that its business substantially depends on internet visibility through intermediaries and search engines. The grievance was not directed at the respondents’ collection of data for operating ChatGPT, but at the effect of ChatGPT’s responses, which allegedly bypassed IndiaMart listing links and instead provided direct seller links, even where the query was said to be based on IndiaMart results. The petitioner contended that this deliberate omission made its platform inaccessible to users, caused loss to its business, diluted its mark, amounted to disparagement and unfair trade practice, and violated the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021.
The respondents opposed the interim application on the basis that the petitioner had no “right to visibility” on ChatGPT, whether under contract, statute, or constitutional law, and therefore disclosed no actionable legal injury. They argued that ChatGPT was not an intermediary or search engine in the statutory sense, but rather an “originator” under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that no case had been made out for trade mark infringement, disparagement, trade libel, injurious falsehood, or copyright infringement.
Appearances:
S. N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate, Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Advocate, Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate, S. K. Bajoria, Advocate, Sourojit Dasgupta, Advocate, Siddharth Banerjee, Advocate, Dhruv Chaddha, Advocate, Gargi Vasistha, Advocate, for Petitioner
Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate, Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocate, Sanjeev Kapoor, Advocate, Shounak Mitra, Advocate, Nirupam Lodha, Advocate, Madhav Khosla, Advocate, Vaibhavi Pandey, Advocate, Aman Khemka, Advocate, Hardik Malik, Advocate, Abhi Uday Singh Gautam, Advocate, for Respondent
