Calcutta High Court questions IndiaMART exclusion from ChatGPT results, says ‘without logic’

IndiaMART claimed to be providing a business model for both buyers and sellers and boasted of having activities in around 40 different countries with 3,000 employees. Besides, the platform claimed a huge “accessibility and turnover”.

“It prima facie appears that the petitioner is being selectively discriminated against and justifiably excluded without any logic. Inevitably, there is a loss of goodwill, reputation, and commercial injury, which is being caused to the petitioner,” the court observed.

The order, however, noted that without giving them an opportunity to the opposite party, there is no scope for passing an interim order.

The court consequently posted the matters on January 13, 2026, underlining the need for the other party to be heard.

An infographic on key points in the case of IndiaMART and AI platforms, including ChatGPT. (Infographic created using AI)

Allegations on ChatGPT

The plea of IndiaMART has alleged that the AI search engines “specifically and consciously” excluded them from being shown or surfacing in their ChatGPT service.

It was further argued that all other platforms and e-commerce marketplaces’ listings were appearing and had been made available.

IndiaMART further argued that ChatGPT was relying on a report or review of the USTR, in which the name of the platform featured, for exclusion from its scope and ambit. The online marketplace, however, said that there was nothing to show that prior to such listing, it had been given any notice or opportunity to be heard.

It was further submitted that in such circumstances, blind reliance on the USTR by the respondents was “arbitrary, capricious, and without any basis”.

“There is no basis for arriving at such a finding by the USTR,” IndiaMART said.

Background

The online marketplace alleged selective discrimination at the hands of the AI engines and complained of trade libel through implied disparagement, conduct resulting in dilution of their mark, injurious falsehood, and unlawful interference with their business, resulting in unfair competition.

“IndiaMART is engaged in the business of an integrated business-to-business (B2B) which provides an internet-based platform with free and paid listings for various industry product services, particularly for listing the profile and catalogue of small and medium enterprises,” the order said.

The platform, it came on record, is run through its web portal and mobile application, whereby any company or individual can advertise their products and seek buyers for their goods and services.

“In the usual course of business, the petitioner has been regularly and uninterrupted using its mark, ‘IndiaMART’, all over the country and also abroad, and has a vast network resulting in widespread knowledge. The mark of the petitioner has also been recognised as a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999,” the order said.