Introduction:

In IndiaMART InterMesh Limited v. OpenAI Inc. & Ors. [GA-COM/1/2025; IP-COM/57/2025], decided on 24 December 2025, the Calcutta High Court, through Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur sitting in its specialised Intellectual Property Rights Division, addressed a novel and far-reaching dispute at the intersection of artificial intelligence, platform governance, competition, trademark law and natural justice. The suit was instituted by IndiaMART InterMesh Limited, a leading Indian business-to-business e-commerce platform, against OpenAI Inc. and other respondents, alleging that it had been selectively and discriminatorily excluded from ChatGPT-generated search results. IndiaMART contended that while its website, http://www.indiamart.com, and listings were not surfaced by ChatGPT, competing domestic and international e-commerce platforms continued to appear, causing reputational harm, dilution of its well-known trademark, loss of goodwill and commercial injury. The petitioner asserted that this exclusion was based on mechanical reliance by OpenAI on reports issued by the United States Trade Representative, without notice, hearing or independent evaluation, despite the fact that such reports are not binding on India and have no statutory force within Indian law. While the Court recorded a clear prima facie finding that the petitioner appeared to have been subjected to selective discrimination “without any logic,” it declined to grant ad-interim relief, holding that doing so would effectively amount to granting final relief without hearing the respondents. The order thus reflects a careful judicial balancing of the rights of Indian businesses against the procedural safeguards owed even to powerful global AI intermediaries, while also flagging serious constitutional, commercial and regulatory concerns arising from opaque algorithmic decision-making.

Arguments:

IndiaMART, through its pleadings, projected itself as one of India’s largest and most trusted B2B marketplaces, catering especially to small and medium enterprises, with operations spanning more than forty countries, a workforce of approximately 3,000 employees, and a trademark recognised as a “well-known mark” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that ChatGPT’s alleged exclusion of IndiaMART from its generated responses amounted to implied disparagement and trade libel, as users were led to believe that IndiaMART was either unreliable, illegitimate or unworthy of recommendation, particularly when rival platforms continued to be referenced. This, according to IndiaMART, constituted injurious falsehood, unfair competition and unlawful interference with its business. A central plank of the petitioner’s case was that OpenAI had relied on USTR reports that named IndiaMART in the context of counterfeiting or piracy concerns, without affording IndiaMART any notice or opportunity to respond, thereby violating basic principles of natural justice. The petitioner highlighted that several other entities whose names appeared in the same or similar USTR reports, including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee and Taobao, were still accessible and referenced on ChatGPT, demonstrating selective and discriminatory application of standards. IndiaMART further relied on an official press release issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, which clarified that USTR reports are not binding on India and that India is under no obligation to act upon them, arguing that blind reliance on such foreign governmental assessments undermines Indian sovereignty and domestic regulatory autonomy. On this basis, IndiaMART sought urgent ad-interim relief restraining the respondents from continuing the alleged exclusion and directing restoration of parity in ChatGPT’s responses. Although OpenAI and the other respondents remained unrepresented at this stage despite service, the petitioner pressed for immediate protection, citing ongoing and irreparable commercial harm.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, after carefully considering the plaint and the materials placed on record, recorded an unusually clear prima facie finding in favour of the petitioner, observing that IndiaMART appeared to have been selectively discriminated against and excluded “without any logic,” and that such exclusion would inevitably cause loss of goodwill, reputation and commercial injury. The Court noted that there was substance in the grievance that the respondents had seemingly relied mechanically on USTR reviews without issuing notice, granting a hearing or conducting any independent assessment, and that the continued availability of other similarly placed platforms raised a serious issue of discriminatory treatment. The Court also took note of the Government of India’s clarification that USTR reports are not binding, observing that this crucial aspect had not been addressed by the respondents. However, despite these strong prima facie observations, the Court declined to grant ad-interim relief, holding that any such order at this stage would virtually amount to passing a final decree in the suit. Justice Kapur emphasised that even where a petitioner demonstrates a strong prima facie case, the principles of natural justice require that respondents be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed that could have far-reaching operational and commercial consequences for them. The Court noted that the matter had been taken up urgently as a “Day’s List” case and that the respondents were unrepresented despite service, but held that this could not justify dispensing with a hearing altogether. The Court thus struck a cautious note, balancing the apparent strength of the petitioner’s case against the procedural fairness owed to the respondents, particularly in a dispute involving complex questions of technology, intermediary liability and algorithmic decision-making. In view of the ensuing court vacation, the matter was directed to be listed on 13 January 2026 for further hearing, with directions to the petitioner to effect fresh service by courier, e-mail and any other permissible mode. While no interim relief was granted, the order unmistakably signals judicial concern over opaque and potentially discriminatory AI-driven exclusions, setting the stage for a significant adjudication on the responsibilities of AI intermediaries operating in India.