The Calcutta High Court has declined to grant interim relief to IndiaMART in its trademark and intellectual property dispute against OpenAI, holding that a private platform cannot be compelled to display or promote another business in a particular manner.
Delivering the order, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that IndiaMART had failed to establish any legal right requiring ChatGPT to provide links to its platform in responses generated for users.
Background of the Case
IndiaMART InterMESH Limited approached the High Court alleging that ChatGPT's search feature was unfairly bypassing IndiaMART listings while providing direct links to sellers or displaying links to competing platforms.
According to the company, users seeking products available through IndiaMART were often redirected to sellers' independent websites instead of IndiaMART listings. The company argued that this reduced traffic to its platform, harmed its business interests, diluted its trademark, and amounted to unfair trade practices.
IndiaMART further challenged OpenAI's reliance on the United States Trade Representative's "Notorious Markets List 2024," claiming the list had no legal force in India and could not justify excluding its platform from ChatGPT-generated responses.
OpenAI opposed the plea, arguing that IndiaMART had no contractual, statutory, or constitutional right to visibility on ChatGPT and that the absence of a particular link in search responses did not create a legal cause of action.
Justice Kapur noted that the core grievance raised by IndiaMART related to alleged economic loss arising from reduced user traffic.
The Court observed,
“No third party can compel a service provider to use its service in a manner to reflect its link or for its benefit.”
The judge emphasized that there is generally no legal obligation requiring one private business to promote another's commercial interests. The Court held that IndiaMART was effectively attempting to dictate how ChatGPT should operate and present information to its users.
Rejecting claims of trademark dilution and disparagement, the Court found that there was no publication of false statements against IndiaMART and no material showing infringement of trademark or copyright rights. The order stated that mere referential use of IndiaMART's name could not amount to trademark dilution.
The Court also examined whether ChatGPT should be treated as an "intermediary" or an "originator" under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Justice Kapur described the issue as a complex question requiring detailed evidence at trial. However, at the interim stage, the Court observed that ChatGPT's ability to generate new content, rather than merely transmitting existing information, suggested that it was closer to an "originator" than a traditional intermediary.
The Court added that India's existing legal framework was drafted before the emergence of generative artificial intelligence and may require legislative intervention to address AI-specific liability issues.
Concluding that IndiaMART had failed to establish a prima facie case, Justice Kapur held that the balance of convenience and potential irreparable injury also weighed against granting interim relief.
The Court dismissed the interim application and directed the parties to take necessary steps for an expeditious hearing of the main suit.
Case Details
Case Title: IndiaMART InterMESH Limited v. OpenAI Inc. and Others
Case Number: IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 in IP-COM/57/2025
Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Decision Date: 20 May 2026
