The Delhi High Court, while refusing to rely on ChatGPT responses in a suit filed by a French luxury company, said that artificial intelligence cannot substitute either human intelligence or a humane element in the adjudicatory process. The court made the observation while hearing a suit filed by luxury company Christian Louboutin over its unique 'red sole' shoes design.
The response of a “Large Language-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 High Court observed.
What was the case?
Christian Louboutin’s suit was against a seller manufacturing shoes with similar designs in various malls in the national capital and other States.
Shutiq, the defendant company, was manufacturing shoes with same get up and identically copied shoe designs, alleged Christian Louboutin.
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 court recorded the statement of one of the partners of the defendant firm.
“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.
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, Justice Singh also said.
The judgment cited 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.
The court observed after comparing both the shoes 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 French firm.
Undoubtedly, the products of the defendant were “knock-offs or look-alikes” of the luxury brand’s distinctive shoes and footwear, Justice Singh added.
“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 High Court said.
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 directed the defendant firm.
"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.
