Delhi High Court Rejects ChatGPT Responses in IPR Lawsuit, Asserts AI Cannot Replace Human Intelligence in Judicial Proceedings
The Delhi High Court, in response to a lawsuit brought by luxury brand Christian Louboutin concerning its distinct "red sole" shoe design, declined to rely on ChatGPT's responses. The court emphasized that artificial intelligence cannot replace human intelligence and empathy in the judicial process. Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that AI-generated data's accuracy and reliability remain uncertain. While AI tools like ChatGPT might aid in preliminary understanding or research, they cannot replace human elements in adjudication.
The case involved Christian Louboutin's suit against a seller producing shoes with similar designs. The defendant, Shutiq, acknowledged using the designs on a "made to order" basis but agreed not to imitate or copy the plaintiff's designs in the future. The court clarified that this doesn't grant a monopoly to Christian Louboutin for all spiked or colored sole shoes. To grant an injunction, the impugned products must be clear imitations of the luxury brand's get-up and designs.
The court compared both shoes and found that the defendant aimed to imitate Christian Louboutin's reputation and goodwill. The defendant's products were deemed "knock-offs" of the plaintiff's distinctive shoes. The court directed the defendant to adhere to the undertaking not to copy the plaintiff's designs. In case of a breach, the defendant would pay Rs. 25 lakhs as damages and Rs. 2 lakhs as costs to Christian Louboutin.
The court highlighted that ChatGPT's responses, including those used by the plaintiffs, cannot form the basis of legal or factual adjudication. The judgment underscored the necessity of preserving the human intelligence and judgment integral to the legal process.