Delhi HC Declares AI Cannot Replace Human Intelligence, Rejects Considering ChatGPT Responses in IPR Dispute

The Delhi High Court has declared that since artificial intelligence (AI) cannot replace human cognition or the humanistic element in the adjudicatory process, ChatGPT cannot be used as the basis for settling legal or factual issues in a court of law. Justice Prathiba M. Singh claims that there is still disagreement on the integrity and dependability of data generated by artificial intelligence. The best that can be done with such a tool is preliminary research or comprehension.

The renowned French luxury brand Christian Louboutin filed an intellectual property rights (IPR) lawsuit, but the Delhi High Court rejected using ChatGPT answers as evidence.

The issue centred on the brand's shoes' unmistakable "red sole" style. The court emphasised that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot replace human intelligence or the human touch in adjudication.

The court agreed with the defendant's claim that their shoe designs were made specifically for each customer and vowed never again to copy or imitate Christian Louboutin's creations.

The court acknowledged this commitment but clarified that the decision did not grant the opulent brand a monopoly on spiked or coloured-soled footwear.

In addition, Justice Singh clarified that the defendant's goods had to be a "colourable or slavish imitation" of Christian Louboutin's distinctive creations for an injunction to be granted.

The case's judge, Justice Prathiba M. Singh, emphasised the persistent concerns about the precision and dependability of AI-generated data.

According to the court's position, as articulated by Justice Singh, artificial intelligence (AI) cannot replace the complex interplay of human cognitive powers and the humane aspect essential to the adjudicative process, given the current stage of technical innovation.

Justice Singh emphasised that while AI technologies like ChatGPT may be useful for initial comprehension or investigation, they cannot be used as the basis for reaching conclusions about the truth or falsity of a matter.

According to the court's investigation, "Large Language-based chatbots" like ChatGPT depend on various variables, including the type and structure of user queries, to produce their responses. Consequently, this creates the potential for inaccurate responses, fictitious legal precedents, and inventive facts.

The case at hand was Christian Louboutin's lawsuit against a supplier charged with creating shoes with identical designs and selling them in different retail malls throughout the nation's capital and other states.

The court's ruling also brought attention to a crucial aspect of using ChatGPT: the AI tool's responses, which came with a disclaimer advising users to confirm information from additional online sources, were not deemed sufficient grounds for legal or factual adjudication in a court of law.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the defendant had consciously tried to copy Christian Louboutin's designs to benefit from the goodwill and prestige of the luxury label.

The court observed that the defendant's goods were imitations or reproductions of Christian Louboutin's unique shoes.

Justice Singh compelled the defendant company to uphold its vow not to imitate or mimic Christian Louboutin's designs.

The court ruled that the defendant would be required to pay Christian Louboutin Rs. 25 lakhs in immediate significant damages in the case of a breach.

In addition, the court ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in costs to the plaintiffs within four weeks due to the defendant's exploitation of photos of well-known Bollywood celebrities and the selling of shoes in premium malls.

This legal precedent illustrates the importance of using human judgment in complicated legal situations and the necessity for caution when implementing AI technologies into the judicial system.