The Delhi High Court has ruled that Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot replace human intelligence or the essential human element in the process of adjudication. In a recent decision, Justice Prathiba M Singh emphasized that ChatGPT, an AI tool, cannot serve as the basis for resolving legal or factual matters in a court of law.
Justice Singh pointed out that the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data remain uncertain. She acknowledged that while such tools might be useful for preliminary understanding or research, they cannot supplant the role of human intelligence or the human touch required in the adjudication process.
This legal perspective arose in a case involving luxury brand Christian Louboutin and a partnership firm accused of producing and selling shoes that violated the brand’s trademark. The plaintiff’s representative presented responses from ChatGPT to demonstrate the reputation of their “Red Sole Shoe” trademark in India.
The court, however, rejected the notion of relying on ChatGPT for legal determinations, stating that the responses from such a Large Language Model (LLM) chatbot are influenced by various factors, including user queries and training data. The court highlighted the potential for erroneous responses, fictional legal precedents, and imaginative information generated by AI chatbots.
The court’s order expressed reservations about the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data and firmly established that AI cannot replace human intelligence or the human aspect in the adjudicatory process. The court emphasized that AI tools like ChatGPT can, at best, be employed for preliminary understanding and research purposes.
Ultimately, after comparing the products of the two parties, the court concluded that the defendant intended to profit from imitating the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill. The court determined that the defendant’s products replicated essential features of the plaintiff’s footwear, including the “Red Sole,” “Spiked Shoe Style,” and prints.
As a result, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from copying the plaintiff’s shoe designs. Any violation of this directive would result in the defendant being liable to pay damages of Rs 25 lakh to the plaintiff. Additionally, due to the defendant’s use of images of prominent Bollywood celebrities on its Instagram account and its presence in upscale malls, the court instructed the defendant to pay Rs 2 lakh in costs to the plaintiff.
(With PTI inputs)
