The Delhi High Court has emphasized that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot act as a replacement for human intelligence or the humane factor in the process of adjudication. It clarified that using ChatGPT as a basis for assessing legal or factual matters within a court of law is not viable.
A single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed an effort by a party in a lawsuit to rely on ChatGPT outcomes to strengthen its argument regarding trademark infringement.
The court stressed that the accuracy and dependability of AI-generated data remain uncertain, and such a tool’s most suitable use would be for initial comprehension or research.
“The use of the tool (ChatGPT) for the adjudication of legal or factual issues within a court of law is inappropriate. The response of a Large Language Model (LLM)-powered chatbot like ChatGPT, which the plaintiff’s counsel attempted to use, hinges on various factors, including the nature of the query posed by the user, the training data, and more. Moreover, there are possibilities of erroneous responses, fictitious case laws, imaginative information, etc., being generated by AI chatbots,” the single bench stated.
The bench made the remarked during the consideration of a lawsuit by a luxury brand against a partnership firm involved in producing and selling shoes purportedly in violation of its trademark.
The plaintiff’s representative argued that a specific shoe name was legally registered as its trademark in India and presented ChatGPT’s responses concerning its “reputation” before the court.
However, the court emphasized that the accuracy and trustworthiness of AI-generated data are still not well-established.
“There is no doubt that the court entertains that, in the current phase of technological advancement, AI cannot replace either human intellect or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At most, the tool could be employed for preliminary comprehension or preliminary research, and nothing more,” the bench stated.
Ultimately, the court determined that, through comparative analysis, the defendant’s products were “knockoffs or lookalikes” of the plaintiff’s distinctive footwear. The defendant consented to a commitment to refrain from replicating or imitating any of the plaintiff’s shoe designs.
The court instructed that any violation of this commitment would make the defendant liable to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation to the plaintiff. Additionally, the defendant was directed to pay Rs 2 lakh as costs to the plaintiff.
