AI cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law

Christian Louboutin SAS & Anr Vs Shoe Boutique (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High court observed that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.

Facts: The present suit was filed by Plaintiffs which are entities existing in France. The first shop of the Plaintiffs is stated to have opened in 1991 in Paris. The Plaintiffs known for the well-known ‘RED SOLE’ shoes which are manufactured and sold by them.

The case of the Plaintiffs is that their shoes have acquired enormous reputation and goodwill not only globally but also in India. Various Indian and international magazines have depicted the Plaintiffs’ shoes and advertisements. In India, the Plaintiffs’ products with the unique designs have been sold since February, 2012. The Plaintiffs have in view of the extensive reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiffs’ designs have also started a “Stopfake” program by which consumers or anyone interested could provide details of either counterfeit or look alike products which would then be looked into by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit being aggrieved by the Defendant’s manufacture and sale of identical spike design shoes and footwear. The Defendants operated in various malls including Select Citywalk Mall, Saket from where the spike footwear has been picked up by the Plaintiffs’ investigators. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the Defendant firm was a partnership firm and that the Defendant is manufacturing identically designed shoes with the same get up. Purchases were made by the Plaintiffs both in Delhi, Hyderabad and other cities where the Defendant was located. It was the case of the Plaintiff’s that a comparison of the shoes shows that the Defendant has identically copied the shoe designs for which necessary pictorial representations were produced by the Petitioner.

The Plaintiff have also made submissions on the basis of the responses made by chat GPT query. Further it was submitted that the plaintiff’s trademark was a registered trademark in India.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. Further, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc. generated by AI chatbots. Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.

On merits, upon perusing the shoes of the parties and the comparative chart of a large variety of product designs it was observed that there has been a clear intention to imitate and gain monetarily on the strength of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs. The products of the Defendant are knock-offs or look-alikes of the Plaintiffs’ distinctive shoes and footwear. The imitation is not of one or two designs but of a large number of designs as the chart indicates. The acts of the Defendant were nothing more but an attempt to pass off its own goods as the goods of the Plaintiffs.

It was held that since the Defendant has agreed to give an undertaking on the very first day, it was directed that the Defendant shall abide by the undertaking that it shall not copy or imitate any of the designs of the Plaintiffs’ shoes. If any breach of this undertaking is found, the Defendant would be liable to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.25 lakhs as damages to the Plaintiffs immediately upon such evidence coming to notice of the Plaintiffs. Further, it was held that considering the fact that the Defendant was also using the pictures of well-known celebrities on social media, and also has displayed/ sold the shoes in high end malls, therefore the Defendant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as costs to the Plaintiffs within four weeks.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 15887/2023 (for exemption)

2. This is an application seeking exemption from filing originals/cleared/translated copies of documents, left side margins, etc. Original documents shall be produced/filed at the time of Admission/Denial, if sought, strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the DHC (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

I.A. 15886/2023 (for additional documents)

4. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter, ‘Commercial Courts Act’). The Plaintiffs, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall

do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the DHC (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

5. Application is disposed of.

6. Accordingly, application is disposed of.

I.A. 15889/2023 (u/S 12A of the Commercial Courts Act)

7. This is an application seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation. In view of the fact that ex-parte urgent orders are sought and in terms of orders passed in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R A Perfumery Works Private Ltd, 2022/DHC/004454, the application is allowed and disposed of.

I.A. 15888/2023 (u/S 149 r/w Section 151 CPC)

8. This is an application under Section 149 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs seeking further time to pay the entire court fees. Let the court fees be filed within one week.

9. Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 583/2023 & and I.A. 15884/2023 (for stay), and I.A. 15885/2023 (for discovery),

10. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

11. Issue summons and notice to the Defendant.

12. Ld. counsel for the Defendant accepts summons and notice.

13. The present suit has been filed by Plaintiff No.1- Christian Louboutin SAS and Plaintiff No.2- Clermon ET Associes, France against the Defendant- M/s Shoe Boutique (Shutiq), a partnership firm which is involved in the manufacture and sale of shoes.

14. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they are entities existing in France. The first shop of the Plaintiffs is stated to have opened in 1991 in Paris. The

Plaintiffs are known for the well-known ‘RED SOLE’ shoes which are manufactured and sold by them. The manner in which the rights in intellectual property of Christian Louboutin, the founder was transferred to Plaintiff No. 2 – Clermon ET Associes, a trust holding all the IPR, is explained in paras 4 and 5 of the plaint. Plaintiff No.2- Christian Louboutin SAS is the exclusive licensee of all the IP from Plaintiff No.1. The ‘RED SOLE’ on heeled shoes is a signature design of the Plaintiffs which is also registered as a trademark. Some very well-known celebrities have endorsed the Plaintiffs’ products as detailed in the plaint. The shoes of the Plaintiffs have been depicted in well-known TV series and films including ‘Sex and the City Part-I & II’, ‘Devil Wears Prada’ and ‘The Proposal’.

15. The case of the Plaintiffs is that their shoes have acquired enormous reputation and goodwill not only globally but also in India. Various Indian and international magazines have depicted the Plaintiffs’ shoes and advertisements. A perusal of the same would show that the mark has been extensively used across the world. The details of the trademark registration of the Plaintiffs are set out below:

16. In India, the Plaintiffs’ products with the unique designs have been sold since February, 2012. The Plaintiffs have in view of the extensive reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiffs’ designs have also started a “Stopfake” program by which consumers or anyone interested could provide details of either counterfeit or look alike products which would then be looked into by the Plaintiffs.

17. Apart from the ‘RED SOLE’ shoe, the Plaintiffs are stated to have also adopted and created a new unique ‘SPIKED SHOE STYLE’ with spike patterns. The spike patterns are created on both men and women shoes. The Plaintiffs are stated to have adopted the ‘SPIKED SHOE STYLE’ in around

2010. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that the ‘SPIKED SHOE STYLE’ is inherently distinctive and the same can be instantly recognised as emanating from the Plaintiffs alone.

18. The sales figure of the Plaintiffs for 2022 in India is approximately Rs.22 crores. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit being aggrieved by the Defendant’s manufacture and sale of identical spike design shoes and footwear. The Defendants operate in various malls including Select Citywalk Mall, Saket from where the spike footwear has been picked up by the Plaintiffs’ investigators.

19. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Defendant firm is a partnership firm of the Makkar family and that the Defendant is manufacturing identically designed shoes with the same get up. Purchases were made by the Plaintiffs both in Delhi, Hyderabad and other cities where the Defendant is located. It is the case of the Plaintiffs a comparison of the shoes shows that the Defendant has identically copied the shoe designs. For the sake of comparison, the same is set out below:

20. Some of the shoes have also been produced before the Court today which shows that the shape and size of the spikes are also identical. As per the Plaintiffs by virtue of the unique and distinctive style and combination of factors such as extensive advertising, long and continuous use, the Plaintiffs have established goodwill in the said designs.

21. The ‘RED SOLE’ mark of the Plaintiffs has already been declared to be a well-known mark under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by this Court in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Mr. Pawan Kumar [CS(COMM) 714/2016, order dated 12th December, 2017].

22. It is the submission of Mr. Pravin Anand, ld. Counsel that the reputation that the Plaintiffs have garnered can also be evaluated on the basis of a chat GPT query which was put on behalf of the Plaintiffs which is extracted herein under:

23. Mr. Anand, ld. Counsel further submits that the ‘RED SOLE SHOE’ is a registered trademark in India. The ld. Counsel also refers to the date of first use of each of the designs/get up and also the first sale made in India which is set out in the table above. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs has further brought it to the attention of the Court that the Defendant is using photographs of various Bollywood celebrities on its social media handles and pages.

24. On the strength of the above facts, it is submitted that the Defendant deserves to be injuncted.

25. Advance copy of the suit was served upon the Defendant and Mr. Amit Verma, ld. Counsel has entered appearance. In additional, Mr. Kunal Makkar, one of the partners of the Defendant is also present in Court.

26. Statement of Mr. Kunal Makkar has been recorded to the effect that the shoe designs were used on a ‘made to order’ basis when the customer requested for the same. He further has given an undertaking on behalf of his firm and his family members that the Defendant would not in future imitate or copy, manufacture or sell any shoes which are imitative of the Plaintiffs’ designs which are subject matter of the present suit. The statement having been recorded today, the Defendant has clearly given an undertaking that it does not intend to use the Plaintiffs’ designs.

27. This is however not to say that the Court recognises a monopoly in favour of the Plaintiff for all Spiked shoes or coloured soles. The impugned products ought to be a colourable or a slavish imitation of the Plaintiff’s get­up and designs for an injunction to be granted. In fact when two different questions are put on CHAT GPT, the following answers emerged:

–

28. The above responses from ChatGPT as also the one relied upon by the Plaintiffs shows that the said tool cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. The response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be relied upon by ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, depends upon a host of factors including the nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data etc. Further, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc. generated by AI chatbots. Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that,

at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more.

29. Upon perusing the shoes of the parties and the comparative chart of a large variety of product designs which have been imitated by the Defendant that this Court arrives at the conclusion that there has been a clear intention to imitate and gain monetarily on the strength of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs. This Court has no doubt that the products of the Defendant are knock-offs or look-alikes of the Plaintiffs’ distinctive shoes and footwear. The Defendant has copied all the essential features of the Plaintiff’s footwear such as ‘RED SOLE’, ‘SPIKED SHOE STYLE’, as also the prints. The imitation is not of one or two designs but of a large number of designs as the chart above indicates. The acts of the Defendant are nothing more but an attempt to pass off its own goods as the goods of the Plaintiffs.

30. Under such circumstances, the suit itself deserves to be decreed in terms of paragraph 65 (a) and (b) of the plaint.

31. Insofar as the prayer for damages is concerned, since the Defendant has agreed to give an undertaking on the very first day when the suit has been listed before this Court, it is directed that the Defendant shall abide by the undertaking that it shall not copy or imitate any of the designs of the Plaintiffs’ shoes. If any breach of this undertaking is found, the Defendant would be liable to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.25 lakhs as damages to the Plaintiffs immediately upon such evidence coming to notice of the Plaintiffs.

32. In addition, considering the fact that the Defendant is also using the pictures of well-known Bollywood celebrities on its Instagram account, etc., and also has displayed/ sold the shoes in high end malls, it is directed that the Defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as costs to the Plaintiffs within four weeks.

33. The suit is decreed in the above terms. Decree sheet be drawn up after payment of the court fees. No further orders as to costs.

34. The Plaintiffs are also given a refund of 50% of Court fees.

35. All pending applications are also disposed of.