LI Network
Published on: 27 August 2023 at 11:33 IST
The Delhi High Court has declined to consider ChatGPT responses as evidence in an intellectual property rights (IPR) case brought forward by the prominent French luxury brand, Christian Louboutin.
The dispute centered around the distinctive “red sole” design of the brand’s shoes. The court emphasized that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot serve as a substitute for human intelligence or the human touch in the process of adjudication.
Justice Prathiba M Singh, presiding over the case, underscored the ongoing uncertainties surrounding the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data.
The court’s stance, as expressed by Justice Singh, firmly establishes that AI, given the current state of technological advancement, cannot replace the intricate interplay of human cognitive abilities and the humane aspect integral to the adjudicatory process.
Justice Singh pointed out that AI tools like ChatGPT may find utility in preliminary understanding or research, but they cannot serve as the foundation for making legal or factual determinations.
The court’s examination revealed that responses generated by “Large Language Model based chatbots” like ChatGPT are contingent upon numerous factors, including the nature and structure of user queries. This, in turn, opens up the possibility of producing erroneous responses, fictional legal precedents, and imaginative data.
The legal matter at hand involved Christian Louboutin’s lawsuit against a vendor accused of producing shoes with strikingly similar designs, which were being sold in various shopping centers across the national capital and other states.
The court acknowledged the defendant’s assertion that their shoe designs were produced on a customized basis and committed to refraining from imitating or replicating Christian Louboutin’s designs in the future.
While the court accepted this commitment, it clarified that the ruling didn’t imply an absolute monopoly for the luxury brand on spiked or colored sole shoes.
Justice Singh further clarified that for an injunction to be granted, the defendant’s products must represent a “colorable or slavish imitation” of Christian Louboutin’s unique designs.
The court’s judgment also highlighted a critical aspect related to the use of ChatGPT: the responses provided by the AI tool, which were accompanied by a disclaimer urging users to verify information from alternative sources on the internet, were not considered sufficient grounds for legal or factual adjudication in a court of law.
After careful examination, the court concluded that the defendant had deliberately attempted to mimic Christian Louboutin’s designs to capitalize on the luxury brand’s reputation and goodwill.
The court noted that the defendant’s products were unmistakably replicas or imitations of Christian Louboutin’s distinctive footwear.
Justice Singh ordered the defendant firm to adhere to its commitment not to replicate or copy Christian Louboutin’s designs.
The court established that in the event of a breach, the defendant would be liable to pay substantial damages amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs to Christian Louboutin immediately.
Additionally, considering the defendant’s use of images of well-known Bollywood celebrities and the sale of shoes in upscale malls, the court directed the defendant to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as costs to the plaintiffs within four weeks.
This legal precedent not only underscores the role of human judgment in complex legal matters but also highlights the need for a cautious approach toward integrating AI technologies into the judicial process.
