Tracking Legal Developments.

USTR Reviews Not Binding on Entities; No Interim Relief for Exclusion from AI Search Results: Calcutta High Court

Introduction

The High Court at Calcutta, in an interim order dated December 24, 2025, declined to grant ad interim relief to India Mart Inter Mesh Limited in its suit against Open AI Inc. and others, alleging discriminatory exclusion from ChatGPT search results based on a United States Trade Representatives (USTR) review. Presided over by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, the court acknowledged a prima facie case of selective discrimination but adjourned the matter to January 13, 2026, to allow the respondents an opportunity to respond, emphasizing procedural fairness amid the urgency of the intellectual property and business interference claims.

Case Background

India Mart Inter Mesh Limited, a leading B2B e-commerce platform operating through www.indiamart.com and its mobile app, connects buyers and sellers, particularly small and medium enterprises, across over 40 countries with a workforce of 3,000. The company has long used its "IndiaMART" trademark, recognized as a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, fostering widespread consumer recognition and substantial turnover.

The dispute arose when Open AI Inc., a Delaware-based non-profit focused on artificial intelligence development, and its commercial arm operating ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, allegedly excluded IndiaMart's websites and listings from search results. The petitioner claims this exclusion stems from reliance on a USTR review flagging IndiaMart for issues like counterfeiting, without prior notice or opportunity to defend. Meanwhile, similar platforms like DHgate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao, also mentioned in the USTR report, continue to appear in ChatGPT results.

The suit seeks a declaration that USTR findings are not binding on the respondents, injunctions against exclusion and disparagement, and remedies for trade libel, mark dilution, injurious falsehood, business interference, and unfair competition under the Information Technology Act and Trade Marks Act. Filed as GA-COM/1/2025 and IP-COM/57/2025, the matter was treated urgently due to potential commercial harm during the court vacation.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's case centers on allegations of arbitrary and capricious exclusion by the respondents, who are classified as intermediaries under the Information Technology Act. IndiaMart argues that the respondents' blind reliance on the USTR review constitutes selective discrimination, as the petitioner received no notice or hearing before the listing, violating principles of natural justice. It highlights that other entities flagged in the same USTR report for counterfeiting and piracy—such as DHgate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao—remain accessible via ChatGPT, evidencing unjust targeting.

Further, IndiaMart points to email correspondences showing no justification for the exclusion and cites a Press Release from India's Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, which states that USTR findings are not binding on India and impose no obligation to act. The petitioner claims this exclusion causes loss of goodwill, reputation, and commercial injury, amounting to implied disparagement, dilution of its well-known mark, injurious falsehood, unlawful business interference, and unfair competition. It emphasizes its uninterrupted use of the "IndiaMART" mark nationwide and abroad, underscoring the mark's established recognition.

The respondents, Open AI Inc. and the ChatGPT operating entity, remained unrepresented despite service, offering no counter-arguments at this stage. The court noted the absence of response but prioritized giving them an opportunity before any orders.

Legal Analysis

The court preliminarily examined the petitioner's claims under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly the protection of well-known marks against dilution and disparagement, alongside principles of unfair competition and intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act. Justice Kapur observed that the USTR review's findings lack binding force on the respondents or Indian entities, aligning with the Indian government's position that such reports do not compel action.

No specific precedents were cited in the order, but the reasoning invoked core principles of natural justice, rejecting arbitrary actions without notice or hearing. The court distinguished between prima facie merit—evident in the apparent selective discrimination and lack of logic in exclusion—and the inappropriateness of interim relief that could equate to a final decree without hearing the other side. It emphasized procedural equity, especially given the vacation period and the respondents' unrepresentation, while recognizing the petitioner's business model and mark's stature as factors supporting urgency.

The analysis also touched on intermediary responsibilities, noting OpenAI's role in AI-generated results and the potential for implied disparagement through exclusion, but deferred deeper scrutiny pending responses.

Key Observations

• "This is a suit inter-alia seeking declaration that the United States Trade Representatives (USTR) reviews containing the findings against the petitioner are not binding on the respondents and cannot be relied on by any of the respondents to exclude the petitioner its marked websites and listings from the search results generated on AI engines including ChatGpt and for other consequential reliefs."
• "In such circumstances, it is alleged that the blind reliance on the USTR by the respondents is arbitrary, capricious and without any basis. There is no basis in arriving at such finding by the USTR. The petitioner has never been given any chance to defend itself and has been selectively discriminated without any logic."
• "In view of the above, it prima facie appears that the petitioner is being selectively discriminated and justifiably excluded without any logic. Inevitably, there is loss of goodwill, reputation and commercial injury which is being caused to the petitioner."
• "Nevertheless, any relief sought for by the petitioner would virtually amount to granting a final decree at this stage. Thus, without giving the respondents an opportunity, there is no scope of passing any ad interim order as on date."

Court's Decision

The court declined to pass any ad interim order, stating: "In view of the above, notwithstanding a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, an opportunity should be provided to the respondents before any interim order is passed. In view of ensuing Vacation, let this matter appear on 13 January, 2026 for further hearing. The petitioner is directed to effect fresh service on the respondents both by courier as well as by e-mail and any other mode of service intimating them of the passing of this order and the filing of the suit."

This decision preserves the status quo temporarily, avoiding premature intervention while signaling judicial recognition of the petitioner's grievances. Practically, it prevents immediate inclusion of IndiaMart in ChatGPT results but underscores the non-binding nature of foreign reports like USTR's on AI platforms operating in India. For future cases, it may set a precedent for cautious interim relief in IP and AI-related disputes involving international reports, emphasizing hearings for all parties and potentially influencing how intermediaries handle content exclusion to avoid discrimination claims.