Delhi High Court Refuses To Rely On ChatGPT Responses In IPR Suit, Says AI Can’t Substitute Human Intelligence In Adjudicatory Process

Refusing to rely on ChatGPT responses in a suit filed by french luxury company Christian Louboutin over its unique “red sole” shoes design, the Delhi High Court has said that artificial intelligence cannot substitute either human intelligence or humane element in the adjudicatory process.“Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said. The court observed that the response of a “Large Language Model based chatbots” such as ChatGPT depends upon a host of factors including the nature and structure of query put by the user and thus, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc. being generated. The court was deciding Christian Louboutin’s suit against a seller manufacturing shoes with similar designs in various malls in the national capital and other States. Also Read: CJI DY Chandrachud Cautions About Artificial Intelligence; Says It Can Make Biased Decisions Based On Societal PrejudicesThe luxury shoe brand alleged that Shutiq, the defendant firm, was manufacturing shoes with same get up and identically copied shoe designs. The court recorded the statement of one of the partners of the defendant firm that the shoe designs were used on a “made to order” basis and that the company will not imitate or copy, manufacture or sell any shoes which are imitative of the Christian Louboutin’s designs, in future.“The statement having been recorded today, the Defendant has clearly given an undertaking that it does not intend to use the Plaintiffs’ designs. This is however not to say that the Court recognises a monopoly in favour of the Plaintiff for all Spiked shoes or coloured soles,” the court said. Justice Singh also said that the impugned products ought to be a “colourable or a slavish imitation” of the luxury brand’s get-up and designs for an injunction to be granted.The judgment then mentions two queries put to ChatGPT, the responses to which were accompanied by a disclaimer to search the internet or explore other sources for additional information.“The above responses from ChatGPT as also the one relied upon by the Plaintiffs shows that the said tool cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law,” the court said.Also Read: Orissa High Court CJ Muralidhar Lauds Justice Anoop Chitkara Of Punjab & Haryana HC For Using ChatGPT While Writing Bail OrderComparing both the shoes, the court observed that there has been a clear intention by the defendant firm to imitate and gain monetarily on the strength of the reputation and goodwill of Christian Louboutin. Justice Singh added that undoubtedly, the products of the defendant were “knock-offs or look-alikes” of the luxury brand’s distinctive shoes and footwear.“The Defendant has copied all the essential features of the Plaintiff’s footwear such as ‘RED SOLE’, ‘SPIKED SHOE STYLE’, as also the prints. The imitation is not of one or two designs but of a large number of designs as the chart above indicates. The acts of the Defendant are nothing more but an attempt to pass off its own goods as the goods of the Plaintiffs,” the court observed. Justice Singh directed the defendant firm to abide by the undertaking given to the court that it shall not copy or imitate any of the designs of Christian Louboutin’s shoes. The court clarified that in case of any breach, the defendant would be liable to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.25 lakhs as damages to Christian Louboutin immediately. “In addition, considering the fact that the Defendant is also using the pictures of well-known Bollywood celebrities on its Instagram account, etc., and also has displayed/ sold the shoes in high end malls, it is directed that the Defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as costs to the Plaintiffs within four weeks,” the court said.Case Title: CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS & ANR. v. M/S THE SHOE BOUTIQUE – SHUTIQCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 755Click Here To Read Order

Delhi High Court Refuses To Rely On ChatGPT Responses In IPR Suit, Says AI Can’t Substitute Human Intelligence In Adjudicatory Process

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags