The use of AI in legal proceedings has arisen again as a subject of discussion following a trademark battle in India between Louboutin, and M/S The Shoe Boutique.
ChatGPT in Louboutin Trademark battle
The High Court of Delhi proceedings focused predominantly on Louboutin’s red sole trademark and spiked shoe design, which Louboutin’s counsel argued was breached by shoes sold by M/S The Shoe Boutique. As the elements of trademark were made out, Justice Singh ordered an injunction against M/S The Shoe Boutique from selling shoes which slavishly imitate Louboutin designs.
But more interestingly the Court’s comments on the trademark elements of the proceedings encompassed discussion of the use of AI-generated evidence in courts. As part of its arguments on the acquired distinctiveness of Louboutin’s products, Counsel for Louboutin relied on a response from ChatGPT to demonstrate the association of red soled shoes to the brand. A screenshot of the ChatGPT interface highlights ChatGPT’s affirmative response to the question of whether Christian Louboutin is “known for spiked men’s shoes”. Although the Court accepted other evidence to the brand’s acquired distinctiveness, such as Louboutin’s advertising and long-standing use of red soled designs, it rejected the use of ChatGPT’s response as evidence of the same.
Justice Singh’s reasoning followed that the answers provided by Large Language model-based chatbots such as ChatGPT do not satisfy the standards of reliability and accuracy for legal evidence, given that significant possibilities of incorrect information and Imaginative data persist. The Court stated that “AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process, [and] at best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more”.
Views on Use of AI in Court Proceedings
Courts in other jurisdictions have echoed similar sentiments regarding the use of generative AI tools in legal proceedings – particularly the use of such tools directly and significantly in the drafting of legal documents to be filed. In the United States, a New-York based law firm and 2 experienced lawyers were fined almost $7,500 for misusing ChatGPT in a court filing for a personal injury case. Even in this circumstance, the Court did not condone the use of ChatGPT as a tool for assistance. Rather, the Court’s censure was directed to the failure of the legal professionals to undertake due diligence in confirming the accuracy and relevance of citations and arguments made in the court filing.
The rise of commonplace and innovative uses of AI is a phenomenon which we will continue to watch unfold in the coming months and years, and ultimately, it requires areas such as the legal sector to have open discussions on the limitations of using such tools, as well as the undeniable advantages from incorporating AI into our daily work.