BCCI faces Lawsuit in Delhi High Court over IPL Mascot ‘Champak’ Robot Dog

In a noteworthy trademark infringement suit, Delhi Press Patra Prakashan, the publisher of the iconic Champak children’s magazine, has moved to the Delhi High Court against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over the naming of a robotic dog ‘Champak’ — an AI-powered mascot introduced as part of the entertainment line-up during the ongoing Indian Premier League (IPL).

Case Highlights:

• The matter came up before HMJ Saurabh Banerjee, who has issued notice to BCCI and listed the case for further hearing on July 9, 2025.
• The Plaintiff alleges that BCCI’s use of the name ‘Champak’ amounts to infringement of its registered trademark, arguing that the magazine has been a household name among Indian children for decades.
• The Plaintiff emphasized that while the robotic dog was introduced earlier, the name ‘Champak’ was assigned only on April 23, allegedly through a public voting campaign—after the IPL had already commenced.
• The Plaintiff stated that “Champak is known for animal characters,” and the use of the mark in connection with a commercial product during a global sporting event like IPL causes dilution and unauthorised commercial exploitation.
• The Court questioned what tangible harm had been caused to the publisher by BCCI’s use of the name.
• The Plaintiff responded that the use was unauthorised and infringes the rights of a registered trademark owner.
• Interestingly, Hon’ble Judge pointed out that ‘Chiku’, also a character in the magazine, has been used as cricketer Virat Kohli’s nickname, yet no legal action was initiated in that regard. The Plaintiff replied that using nicknames informally is different from launching a product with that name, qualifying as commercial use.
• The Court remarked that no clear pleading of unfair advantage or detriment was evident in the current record and declined to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction at this stage.

The Defendants- BCCI, argued:

• ‘Champak’ is also the name of a flower.
• The robotic dog is tied to a fictional series and not the magazine.
• They referenced Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah, implying broader public associations with the name.

What’s at Stake? This case underscores a critical intersection between IP law, pop culture, and branding in the digital age:

• Can legacy literary titles prevent their names from being adopted in unrelated commercial ventures?
• How should courts approach trademark claims when a mark has strong cultural resonance, but the use is non-competing in nature?

As the matter proceeds, it will be important to see how the Court defines dilution, commercial exploitation, and cultural misappropriation within India’s IP framework.

Contributed by: Ekagrata Kalra