Calcutta HC Rejects Indiamart Plea Against OpenAI ChatGPT Visibility Claims

The Calcutta High Court (Original Side), Intellectual Property Rights Division, declined to grant interim relief to IndiaMART InterMESH Limited in a suit alleging exclusion of its platform from responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, while hearing an application for interim relief in GA-COM/1/2025 arising out of IP-COM/57/2025, held that the petitioner had failed to establish any prima facie legal right warranting injunctive protection at this stage and accordingly dismissed the application.

The petitioner, operating an integrated B2B e-commerce platform under the brand IndiaMART since 1996 and holding multiple registered trademarks, alleged that ChatGPT selectively excluded its website links while providing direct links to competing platforms in response to user queries.

It was contended that such selective omission amounted to dilution of trademark rights, disparagement, unfair trade practice, and violation of constitutional and statutory protections under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner further argued that ChatGPT was obligated to provide accessible links to its platform and that the reliance placed by the respondents on the USTR Notorious Markets List 2024 to justify exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The respondents, including OpenAI Inc., opposed the application, contending that there is no legal right to “visibility” on ChatGPT and no statutory, contractual or constitutional obligation requiring them to display the petitioner’s links in a particular manner. It was submitted that ChatGPT functions as an AI-based generative system and not a search engine, and its output constitutes independently generated responses.

The Court observed that, “The grievance raised by the petitioner essentially pertained to the alleged loss of visibility and consequent economic impact, which constitutes pure economic loss. It held that there is no legal duty on a private AI platform to promote or structure its output in a manner favourable to any third-party business.”

The Court further noted that compelling such inclusion would amount to interfering with the autonomy of a private digital platform and could lead to indeterminate obligations with wide-ranging implications.

On the statutory framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Court recorded that the classification of ChatGPT as an “intermediary” or an “originator” raises complex questions requiring detailed examination at trial. Prima facie, however, the Court observed that

generative AI systems do not fit squarely within the traditional intermediary model and may exhibit characteristics of content generation. Nevertheless, it held that even assuming intermediary status, the petitioner had not demonstrated breach of any enforceable legal right.

Concluding that no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury was made out, the Court dismissed the application for interim relief and directed that the suit be proceeded with expeditiously.