The Calcutta High Court rejected IndiaMART’s request for interim relief against OpenAI, holding that there is no legal right to compel a private AI platform to display or promote a business’s links. The Court found that IndiaMART’s grievance was primarily commercial in nature and did not establish trademark infringement, disparagement, copyright infringement, or any independent legal right warranting interim protection.

Background / Facts

1. The case concerned an application for interim relief filed by IndiaMART InterMESH Limited against OpenAI Inc. and others (running ChatGPT).
2. IndiaMART, a B2B e-commerce platform operating since 1996, alleged that ChatGPT Search bypassed IndiaMART listings and instead provided direct seller links, reducing traffic to its platform.
3. IndiaMART also objected to OpenAI’s reliance on the USTR Notorious Markets List, 2024, contending that the list had no legal force in India and was being used discriminatorily.

Issues

The principal issues were:

1. whether IndiaMART had a legal right to compel visibility of its links on ChatGPT;
2. whether OpenAI’s alleged omission amounted to trademark dilution, disparagement, unfair trade practice or copyright infringement;
3. whether ChatGPT was an intermediary or originator under the IT Act; and
4. whether IndiaMART had satisfied the requirements for interim relief.

Contentions of the Parties

IndiaMART contended that

1. ChatGPT deliberately excluded or downgraded its links while giving visibility to competing platforms, causing business loss and discrimination.
2. It argued that ChatGPT functioned as an intermediary under the IT Act and could not arbitrarily suppress access to IndiaMART’s platform.

OpenAI argued that

1. IndiaMART had no contractual, statutory or constitutional “right to visibility” on ChatGPT.
2. It submitted that ChatGPT generated responses as an originator rather than acting as a passive intermediary.
3. No case of trademark infringement, disparagement, trade libel, injurious falsehood or copyright infringement had been made out.

Court Ruling

The Calcutta High Court dismissed IndiaMART’s application for interim relief. The Court held that

1. no private entity can be compelled to promote another private party’s business in the absence of a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation.
2. IndiaMART’s grievance was essentially one of pure economic loss arising from reduced traffic and visibility.
3. The Court found no prima facie case of trademark infringement, dilution, disparagement or copyright infringement. It held that mere silence or non-display could not amount to disparagement, and referential use of IndiaMART did not constitute trademark dilution.
4. On the question of ChatGPT’s classification under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Court noted that generative AI does not fit neatly within the existing statutory framework, but expressed the prima facie view that ChatGPT is closer to an originator than a passive intermediary.
5. The Court opined that even assuming ChatGPT were an intermediary, IndiaMART had not shown breach of any independent legal right.

The Court concluded that IndiaMART failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury. The interim application was therefore dismissed and the suit was directed to proceed expeditiously.

Key Takeaways

1. Businesses do not have an automatic legal right to be displayed, ranked, or promoted by a private AI platform unless such a right arises from contract, statute, or constitutional obligation.
2. Commercial loss arising from reduced traffic or visibility is not enough for interim relief unless accompanied by infringement of a recognised legal right.
3. The dispute was not treated as an IP issue because IndiaMART could not show misuse of its trademark, dilution of its mark, disparagement of its platform, or unauthorised copying of protected content; the complaint was essentially about loss of platform visibility.
4. The judgment highlights the unsettled legal treatment of generative AI platforms under the IT Act, while signalling judicial caution in compelling AI tools to alter how they generate or display results at the interim stage.