Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited Vs OpenAI Inc. and Ors.: Calcutta High Court’s Landmark AI Governance Judgment

The decision delivered by the Calcutta High Court in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited Vs OpenAI Inc. and Ors marks one of the earliest detailed judicial discussions in India concerning the legal character of generative artificial intelligence platforms such as ChatGPT.

The judgement goes beyond a traditional intellectual property dispute and enters the evolving area of AI governance, intermediary liability, platform autonomy, economic rights on digital platforms, and the applicability of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to modern generative AI systems.

The case arose from allegations by IndiaMart that ChatGPT Search deliberately avoided displaying IndiaMart links while showing direct seller websites or competing platforms in response to user prompts.

The dispute therefore raised larger questions concerning whether a private AI platform can be compelled to display or promote another business platform in a particular manner and whether generative AI systems should legally be treated as “intermediaries” or “originators” under Indian law.

The judgement is significant because the court extensively discussed the architecture and functioning of large language models (LLMs), the distinction between traditional search engines and generative AI systems, and the inadequacy of existing Indian technology law frameworks to deal with modern AI tools.

Though the dispute was decided at an interim stage, the observations made by the Court are likely to influence future litigation involving artificial intelligence, digital platforms, algorithmic visibility, and AI-generated outputs in India.

Factual And Procedural Background

The petitioner, IndiaMart Inter Mesh Limited, operates one of India’s largest B2B online marketplace platforms.

Since 1996, the platform has provided online business listings connecting suppliers and buyers across diverse product categories.

The petitioner owns several registered trademarks associated with “IndiaMart” and claimed that a substantial part of its business depends on online visibility through internet searches and digital referrals.

The respondents included OpenAI Inc. and related entities associated with the operation of ChatGPT.

The court recorded that ChatGPT is a conversational AI platform powered through large language models and capable of generating synthesised responses by processing enormous volumes of internet data.

The dispute specifically concerned “ChatGPT Search”, introduced broadly around October 2024.

According to the petitioner, when users searched for products or suppliers on ChatGPT, the AI system allegedly bypassed IndiaMart links and directly displayed seller websites, whereas competing platforms allegedly received visible platform links.

IndiaMart argued that this amounted to selective exclusion and discrimination against its platform.

The petitioner further alleged that OpenAI was relying upon the United States Trade Representative Review of Notorious Markets List 2024 (USTR List), where IndiaMart’s name appeared, to justify restricting visibility of IndiaMart links.

IndiaMart contended that the USTR List had no binding legal force in India and that reliance upon such a foreign document was arbitrary and discriminatory.

An interim application seeking relief was filed before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court.

IndiaMart sought directions requiring ChatGPT to display accessible IndiaMart links in its responses and alleged infringement of intellectual property rights, dilution of trademark, disparagement, unfair trade practices, violation of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Core Legal Issues Before The Court

The primary issue before the Court was whether IndiaMart possessed any enforceable legal right requiring ChatGPT to display its platform links in a specific manner.

IndiaMart argued that ChatGPT was intentionally excluding the IndiaMart platform despite displaying links of competing platforms.

According to the petitioner, such omission interfered with prospective business opportunities, diverted user traffic, and diluted the commercial value of its trademarks.

Arguments Raised By IndiaMart

The petitioner relied upon Section 2(1)(w) and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Rule 3(1)(n) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

IndiaMart contended that ChatGPT functions as an intermediary and therefore cannot discriminate between platforms while disseminating search-related information.

The petitioner further argued that internet users possess a right to access information concerning IndiaMart and that deliberate exclusion of IndiaMart links violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

To support its arguments, the petitioner relied upon judgements including:

• Neptune Assurance Co. Ltd vs Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 310
• Press Trust of India vs. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1044
• Neetu Singh & Anr. v. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2637

Arguments Raised By OpenAI

OpenAI, on the other hand, argued that IndiaMart had no “right to visibility” on a private platform.

It was contended that no contract, statute, or constitutional provision obligated ChatGPT to display IndiaMart links.

OpenAI argued that forcing such visibility would interfere with private business autonomy and disrupt the functioning of generative AI systems.

The respondents also denied that ChatGPT was a conventional search engine or intermediary.

They argued that ChatGPT functions more like an “originator” under Section 2(1)(za) of the IT Act because it generates independent synthesised responses rather than merely hosting or transmitting third-party content.

The respondents relied upon several precedents, including:

• Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809
• Tech Plus Media Private Limited v. Jyoti Janda, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1819
• Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671
• Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, (1990) 3 SCC 447

Important Legal Questions Discussed By The Court

Legal Issue	Court’s Discussion
Right To Platform Visibility	Whether a business can compel an AI platform to display links or references.
AI As Intermediary	Whether ChatGPT falls within the definition of intermediary under the IT Act, 2000.
AI As Originator	Whether generative AI independently creates content rather than merely transmitting it.
Algorithmic Neutrality	Whether AI systems are legally required to treat competing platforms equally.
Constitutional Rights	Whether exclusion from AI-generated responses violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Foreign Regulatory Influence	Whether reliance upon the USTR List could legally justify platform decisions in India.

ChatGPT Search Vs. Traditional Search Engines

One of the most important aspects of the judgement was the court’s recognition that generative AI systems differ fundamentally from traditional search engines.

The court discussed how large language models generate synthesised and contextual responses instead of merely indexing and displaying hyperlinks.

This distinction became central to the legal debate because IndiaMart attempted to treat ChatGPT similarly to a conventional intermediary or search engine.

The court examined whether the existing legal framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000, adequately addresses AI-generated outputs and algorithmic recommendation systems.

Key Differences Highlighted By The Court

• Traditional search engines primarily index and retrieve web links.
• Generative AI systems synthesise information into conversational responses.
• AI outputs may involve independent computational processing and contextual generation.
• Generative AI platforms may not always function as passive intermediaries.
• Existing statutory definitions under Indian law may not fully address modern AI technologies.

Constitutional And Digital Rights Dimensions

IndiaMart attempted to invoke constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner argued that selective exclusion from AI-generated responses impacted commercial speech, digital access, and equality in online marketplaces.

The case therefore moved beyond a simple trademark or competition dispute and entered broader constitutional territory involving algorithmic governance and digital economic rights.

The Court examined whether constitutional protections could be directly enforced against a private AI platform operating independently without statutory obligations requiring neutrality.

Impact On AI Regulation In India

The judgement is likely to become an important reference point for future Indian litigation concerning artificial intelligence regulation.

The observations of the Court demonstrate judicial awareness of the technological distinctions between traditional intermediaries and generative AI systems.

The decision may influence future policy discussions involving:

• AI governance frameworks in India
• Algorithmic transparency obligations
• Platform accountability standards
• Digital competition law
• Intermediary liability reform
• AI-generated content regulation
• User rights in AI ecosystems

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited Vs OpenAI Inc. and Ors represents a landmark judicial engagement with the rapidly evolving field of generative artificial intelligence in India.

The dispute highlighted fundamental questions concerning AI governance, algorithmic visibility, intermediary liability, digital competition, and platform autonomy.

Although the matter arose from a commercial dispute regarding online visibility, the broader observations made by the Court may significantly shape future Indian legal approaches toward generative AI systems and digital platform regulation.

As AI technologies continue to transform online communication, search behaviour, and commercial ecosystems, Indian courts and lawmakers will likely face increasing pressure to modernise existing technology laws and develop specialised legal frameworks governing artificial intelligence.

---

IndiaMart Vs OpenAI & ChatGPT: Calcutta High Court’s Landmark AI Liability Judgment Explained

The Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judgement in the matter of generative artificial intelligence, intermediary liability, platform autonomy, trademark dilution, and digital business rights in India.

The judgement in IndiaMart Inter Mesh Limited Vs. Open AI Inc. and Ors is likely to become a major precedent governing AI regulation and platform liability in India.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court observed that no law compels a private business to operate according to terms dictated by another business entity. The court emphasised principles of free market autonomy and noted that compelling a platform to display another business in a particular manner would seriously interfere with commercial freedom.

The Court referred to the common law principle discussed by Lord Diplock in Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd, [1970] 2 All ER 294, observing that common law generally does not impose liability for “pure omissions” unless there exists a statutory, contractual, or constitutional duty.

According to the Court, the injury complained of by IndiaMart was essentially “pure economic loss”, namely loss of user traffic and potential profit. The Court held that such economic loss alone does not create a legal cause of action unless some enforceable legal right has been infringed.

Whether ChatGPT Is an “Originator” or “Intermediary” Under the IT Act

A major part of the judgement focused upon whether ChatGPT can legally be considered an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act or an “originator” under Section 2(1)(za).

The court analysed the functioning of traditional search engines and contrasted them with generative AI systems. Justice Kapur explained that traditional search engines merely crawl and rank existing internet data. In contrast, large language models synthesise information, generate new responses, and create content dynamically.

ChatGPT was described as a system capable of independently generating poems, research material, code, drawings, and textual outputs.

The Court observed that such functions go far beyond passive hosting or transmission of third-party content. Therefore, prima facie, ChatGPT possesses characteristics of an “originator” because it creates and generates electronic records rather than merely transmitting them.

“ChatGPT has an element of newness, uniqueness and originality in its results which ought to bring it within the definition of an ‘originator’ rather than an ‘intermediary’.”

However, the Court clarified that this issue is legally complex and would ultimately require final adjudication based upon technical and expert evidence during trial.

AI Regulation and Policy Observations by the Court

The judgement also contains important policy observations concerning AI regulation in India.

Justice Kapur recognised that the Information Technology Act, 2000, was enacted long before the emergence of generative AI technologies and therefore does not adequately address modern AI systems.

The Court noted that legislative intervention would eventually become necessary to define liabilities and responsibilities relating to AI platforms.

Reliance on Google LLC v. DRS Logistics Precedent

The Court further referred to Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809, where the Delhi High Court observed that no third party can compel a service provider to use its services in a manner benefiting another entity.

This precedent significantly influenced the Court’s conclusion.

Trademark Dilution and Disparagement Findings

Regarding trademark dilution and disparagement, the Court held that no actionable case had been made out because there was no deceptive publication, false representation, confusion, or trade use of IndiaMart’s mark.

The Court held that mere non-display or silence could not constitute disparagement or trademark dilution.

The Court also relied upon Berger Paints India Ltd v. JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4949, observing that trademark dilution under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires use “in the course of trade”, which was absent in the present case.

Copyright Claims Analysis

On copyright claims, the Court found that IndiaMart failed to identify any specific copyrighted work allegedly infringed by ChatGPT.

Reliance was placed upon Tech Plus Media Private Ltd v. Jyoti Janda, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1819.

USTR List and Internal Business Policy Observations

The Court also rejected the argument that reliance upon the USTR List itself created a legal wrong.

According to the Court, OpenAI’s decision to rely upon such reports formed part of its internal policy and business decision-making process, which was not ordinarily justiciable.

Floodgates of Litigation Concern

Another important aspect discussed by the Court concerned the risk of opening “floodgates of litigation”.

The Court cited the famous observation of Cardozo CJ in Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, (1931) 255 NY 170, warning against “liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”.

The Court ultimately concluded that granting interim relief would effectively amount to compelling specific performance requiring continuous judicial supervision over AI outputs and platform functioning.

Final Decision of the Court

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the interim application filed by IndiaMart and refused to direct ChatGPT to display IndiaMart links in a particular manner.

The court held that IndiaMart failed to establish the following:

• Prima facie case
• Balance of convenience
• Irreparable injury necessary for grant of interim injunction

The Court clarified that no vested legal right had been shown by the petitioner requiring enforcement against OpenAI or ChatGPT.

The suit itself, however, remains pending for final adjudication, and the parties were directed to take steps for an expeditious hearing.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

The judgement lays down several important legal principles relating to generative AI and platform liability in India.

• The Court prima facie recognised that generative AI systems like ChatGPT may not neatly fit within the conventional definition of “intermediary” under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The Court observed that generative AI systems may instead function as “originators” because of their ability to generate synthesised and original outputs.
• The judgement establishes that no private business possesses an automatic legal right to algorithmic visibility or preferential display on another private digital platform unless supported by a specific legal, statutory, or contractual right.
• The decision reinforces the principle that pure economic loss and loss of internet traffic, without infringement of a substantive legal right, are insufficient to sustain claims of trademark dilution, disparagement, or unfair trade practices.
• The judgement is likely to become an important precedent in future Indian litigation involving artificial intelligence, algorithmic governance, digital platform autonomy, intermediary liability, and AI regulation.

Case Details

Particulars	Details
Case Name	IndiaMart InterMesh Limited Vs. OpenAI Inc. and Ors.
Date of Judgment	20 May 2026
Case Number	IP-COM/57/2025
Court	Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side
High Court	Calcutta High Court
Coram	Honourable Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur