‘Still A Grey Area’: Delhi High Court Refuses To Rely On AI For Legal Purposes

According to the Delhi High Court, artificial intelligence (AI) cannot substitute the human intelligence nor the humane element in the adjudicatory process.

ChatGPT cannot serve as the foundation for the adjudication of legal or factual disputes in a court of law, according to the High Court.

According to Justice Prathiba M. Singh, there is still debate over the precision and reliability of data provided by artificial intelligence, and at best, such a tool can be used to do preliminary analysis or research.

The court made these observations as it dealt with a lawsuit by luxury brand Christian Louboutin against a partnership firm that was engaged in the production and sale of shoes that were in violation of its trademark.

The complainant's legal representative claimed that "Red Sole Shoe" was its trademark registered in India and placed before court responses by ChatGPT with respect to its "reputation".

The court finally decided that the defendant had a "clear intention to imitate and gain monetarily on the strength of the reputation and goodwill" of the complainant, based on the comparative study of the two parties' products.