Generative AI: Intermediary or Originator in IndiaMART v. OpenAI

Calcutta High Court’s Landmark Ruling on AI and Trademark Law

The Calcutta High Court’s recent judgment in the case of IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc. has sparked significant discussion concerning the classification of algorithmic systems under existing statutory frameworks. The case, which emerged in late 2025, centered on allegations by IndiaMART, one of India’s premier B2B e-commerce platforms. IndiaMART accused ChatGPT of deliberately omitting links to its platform, instead favoring competitors, which it argued amounted to trademark dilution and financial damage.

Contents

Algorithmic Silence vs. Trademark Infringement

OpenAI countered these claims, asserting that private AI platforms are under no obligation to ensure visibility on search results, as no constitutional or statutory right to platform visibility exists. The Calcutta High Court analyzed these assertions and concluded that algorithmic omission does not equate to legal injury. The court elaborated:

(a) Mere Silence is not Infringement: Simply not featuring a brand’s URL does not meet the criteria for public dissemination, consumer deception, or commercial use as required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

(b) Commercial Autonomy: The court recognized that OpenAI’s decision to exclude IndiaMART was based on its listing on the US Trade Representative’s Notorious Markets List. The court’s decision rooted in the laissez-faire principle, highlighted that tech companies have no common law duty to safeguard the commercial interests of third parties.

Intermediary or Originator? The AI Dilemma

The Information Technology Act, 2000, grants intermediaries safe harbor for third-party content. However, generative AI models like Large Language Models (LLMs), which create new content from user prompts, present a unique challenge. The court acknowledged that while LLMs generate new outputs, they require a user’s input, positioning AI as a resource and the user as the originator. The HC distinguished generative AI from passive digital platforms, implying that LLMs could be classified as “originators” under the IT Act, setting the stage for a final hearing on this nuanced legal question.

Implications for Policy and Future AI Regulation

The ruling is indicative of the broader legal and policy challenges posed by generative AI. The Indian government is actively developing frameworks to regulate AI. In December 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a working paper on Generative AI and Copyright. This document examined AI’s interaction with copyright law, proposing a mandatory licensing regime for AI training on Indian content, with royalties managed by a government-designated entity.

Moreover, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has published AI Governance Guidelines to support the structured development of AI in India. As AI becomes more accessible, regulatory focus must evolve from restriction to creating robust frameworks that prevent legal disruptions. Global AI development currently suffers from siloed, closed-loop ecosystems, underscoring the need for legal frameworks that ensure accountability and harmony with existing laws.

About the Author: Anusha Mohapatra is a Senior Associate at Vector Legal.