Recent ruling before the Calcutta High Court raised an interesting question for the AI era: Do businesses have a right to claim visibility on AI platforms?

IndiaMART argued that Open AI was excluding its links from responses to user prompts while showing other sources and seller websites on ChatGPT search. The Court declined interim relief to IndiaMART.

Reasoning: Businesses do not automatically have a legal right to visibility on a private AI platform. Not being mentioned by AI does not, by itself, prove trademark infringement, disparagement, or any other legal wrong.

The Court noted that the loss complained of was pure economic loss (due to loss of user traffic), and that common law does not impose liability for pure omissions without a statutory or contractual duty.

The Court also took note of a bigger issue: Generative AI does not fit neatly in any definition under India’s current Information Technology Act framework. Prima facie, ChatGPT may look more like an “originator” [under section 2(1)(za); due to its generative qualities] than a passive “intermediary”, but this question requires legislative intervention.

Ironically, at an earlier point of time, IndiaMART itself had blocked ChatGPT from accessing its website.

What this really signals is a shift from what AI shows to what AI leaves out.

As AI increasingly becomes a discovery layer for products, businesses, and information, questions around ranking, citation, visibility, and platform accountability will become major regulatory issues.

Source: IA No. GA‑COM/1/2025 in IP‑COM/57/2025 (Cal HC)

PW (PhysicsWallah) was recently penalized for using "dark patterns" that influenced consumer decisions through design elements rather than genuine choice.

According to the regulator, a ₹10 donation to the PW Foundation was already selected at the checkout window through a pre-ticked box.

This meant users would automatically pay ₹10 unless they noticed and un-checked it (and most users simply didn't notice).

When users clicked “Know More,” they were shown emotionally persuasive messages about financial assistance for children’s education, marriages, and healthcare for underserved communities, inducing guilt for declining the donation contribution.

Additionally, personal information was required to access certain "free" educational content.

The Central Consumer Protection Authority classified these practices as basket sneaking, confirm shaming, and forced action, and treated them as violations under the Consumer Protection Act and the 2023 Dark Patterns Guidelines.

Through this mechanism, PW Foundation reportedly received about ₹2.47 crore from more than 21.36 lakh users. The penalty was decided based on factors such as the number of users impacted, the frequency of the conduct, and the vulnerability of the people affected.

What makes this order significant is that it was initiated suo motu, which signals a shift toward more proactive scrutiny of product and UX design.

Globally, regulators have adopted an even stricter approach in such cases. Amazon paid $2.5 billion over Prime dark patterns in 2025; Epic Games (Fortnite) paid $520 million for dark patterns targeting children; and Meta was fined €390 million for manipulative consent flows.

As regulators examine how choices are presented rather than simply what is disclosed, UI/UX decisions are increasingly becoming regulatory considerations.

#TechLaw #DarkPatterns

Issue before the Court: Can using a rival's trademark as a hidden Google Ads keyword amount to trademark infringement?

🔷 Operational Mechanics
- Advertisers bid on keywords within Google Ads
- These keywords are typically invisible to users
- When a user searches for a matching term, Google compares competing advertisers and decides which ads to show, and in what order, based on factors such as bids and ad quality
- The user sees the ad, but never sees the underlying keyword that triggered it

For ex.: A customer searching for Cadbury may be shown a competitor's ad (say ChocoCloud), because ChocoCloud secretly targeted "Cadbury" as a keyword, even though that keyword does not appear in the advertisement of ChocoCloud directly.

🔷 Plaintiff's Arguments
- Competitors were bidding on HINDWARE to divert search traffic
- Google was monetising HINDWARE's goodwill and creating confusion among consumers

🔷 Google's Arguments
- A keyword is merely a backend trigger and not visible ad text
- There is no trademark "use" or confusion where the ad clearly identifies its source
- Google claimed intermediary safe harbour under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)

🔷 Court's Conclusion
- Using a registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword constitutes "use" for trademark law purposes [Section 29(6) and 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999]
- Google's conduct amounted to infringement because the trademark was used in the advertising process to obtain an unfair commercial advantage
- Google could not claim IT Act protection because it was playing an active commercial role in selling and monetising trademark keywords

🔷 Key Takeaway
Traditionally, adtech distinguishes between:
- What users see (ads, creatives, landing pages); and
- What happens in the backend (keywords, targeting signals, audience selection and auctions)

This judgment suggests that courts may focus on the commercial function of a tool, not merely its visibility to users. If a backend mechanism exploits another party's legal rights, "users never saw it" may no longer be a sufficient defence.

#IntellectualProperty #TechLaw #DigitalMarketing

Here’s What It Means for Global M&A.

From July 1, 2026, China can require authorization before restricted technologies, data, technical services, and even certain talent transfers move out of China.

It can also review, block, or unwind overseas deals involving sensitive Chinese assets (triggered after Beijing ordered Meta to unwind its ~$2B acquisition of AI startup Manus).

The rules cover indirect transfers as well: deploying technical staff overseas, providing training, or offering technical guidance to foreign affiliates can be treated as a technology transfer and may require approval.

Chinese firms may invest capital but may not legally transfer the know-how.

Sectors most affected: electronics, EVs, rare earths, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, solar, AI.

India has recently eased parts of its Chinese investment regime under Press Note 3, hoping to benefit from capital, expertise, technology, and supply-chain integration. However, under this new framework, India may approve an investment but China can still restrict the transfer of the underlying technology, know-how, data, or talent.

Cross-border deals involving Chinese technology now carry an additional layer of regulatory risk, even after a transaction has been completed.

Source: Reuters

Delhi HC recently ruled that individuals can stop their names from being permanently searchable in online judicial records, even though the judgments themselves remain public.

The Court directed search engines (like Google) and legal databases (specifically Indian Kanoon) to de-index judgments from name-based searches, while court registries redact personal identifiers in the publicly accessible version of judgments.

The Court evaluated: Does continued accessibility of personal information cause disproportionate harm to informational privacy, dignity, and reputation, without any legitimate public interest justifying it?

The Court laid out 7 factors to consider (the nature of the information, time elapsed, whether the person is a public figure, the accuracy of the information, harm to reputation, digital accessibility, and impact on free speech) and 3 clear situations where Right to Be Forgotten (‘RTBF’) applies:
• You were acquitted or discharged (the case ended in your favour)
• Proceedings were quashed or settled
• It is a private civil or matrimonial dispute

The Court explicitly stated that these factors are not a checklist and must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.

For ex., the Court rejected a public figure’s request to remove decade-old posts about his drunken behaviour, holding that the RTBF protects private individuals and is not a tool for public figures to selectively erase inconvenient past conduct.

Who can't use it? Offences against women or children, breaches of public trust (including corruption), and cases involving public servants or elected officials are generally excluded.

While the ruling establishes a framework for RTBF claims, future outcomes may depend heavily on how courts weigh the harm and the public interest in each case.