Introduction
“Champak” — a name most of us grew up seeing on colorful magazine covers- has now also been used as the name of an AI-powered robotic dog with a camera introduced by the BCCI during IPL 2025, which led to a legal dispute between the publisher of the magazine and the famous cricket league. The legal debate is centered on naming, but not limited to that. It is also about trademark protection, brand dilution, and how much protection is given to legacy intellectual property in this new-age digital and Artificial Intelligence era. This case raises certain important questions on the protection of trademarks in use for many years and the protection of the use of the same trademark in different industries.
Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited Vs BCCI & Anr.
Background
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had introduced an AI-powered robotic dog named “Champak” during the IPL 2025 season.
The robotic dog, formally launched during the toss ahead of the Match between Mumbai Indians and Delhi Capitals, became a regular feature during match tosses and practice sessions. Players were also seen interacting with the robotic dog during the match. Its name was selected through a poll posted on the IPL’s official website. The names in the poll, which were open for the fans to choose from, also included ‘Chulbul’ and ‘Jaffa’. “Champak” received the highest number of votes from fans, consequently becoming the final name.
The controversy emerged when Delhi Press, the publisher of the renowned children’s magazine Champak, filed a suit against BCCI for the unauthorized use of their name.
Arguments of the plaintiff
Advocate Amit Gupta, representing the plaintiff, argued that unauthorized use of a trademark of the same name without permission or prior agreement is an infringement of trademark under section 29, and that Champak is well known, especially among young children, and copying this name is an act of infringement.
He further contended that although the product is distinct, its use is detrimental and causes dilution.
Contentions of the defendant
The lawyer representing the defendant, J Sai Deepak, denied the alleged infringement and stated that Champak is the name of a flower, not a newly introduced term. He also added that the name is also associated with a TV series character from Tarak Mehta Ka Oolta Chashma, not exclusively the magazine, and that “The magazine’s claim that the word ‘Champak’ is exclusively theirs needs to be tested at trial.”
Courts Observation
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the name “Champak” has been used by the magazine since 1968 and issued a notice to the BCCI regarding naming their AI robot dog ‘Champak’. It directed them to reply within four weeks, but it is not convinced that it requires an urgent injunction order. The next hearing is scheduled for 9 July 2025.
Other similar cases
Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. vs Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd., (2007)
Facts
Atlas Cycles has had “Atlas” as a registered trademark since 1952. It had a huge share in the Market in the sale of cycles in India. Another company, Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd., started manufacturing cycles under the name “House of Atlas”.
After learning this, the plaintiff filed a suit praying for a permanent injunction, delivery-up, and rendition of accounts for profit.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Atlas Cycles argued that they had never permitted the use of their trademark. They pointed out that while there may have been family discussions or settlements among the promoters, the company itself, a separate legal entity, was never part of such arrangements and could not be bound by them. They also emphasized that they filed a suit right after learning about the use of their trademark in the bicycle market, to avoid any claims of waiving their rights or delay.
In response, the defendant claimed that since both companies were connected through family ties, there was an implied consent for using the name “Atlas”. They also argued that the plaintiff had not objected earlier and therefore acquiesced to their use of the name.
Courts Observation
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction, restraining Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. from using the name “Atlas” for bicycles as it found that Atlas Cycles had rightly exercised its legal rights without any delay in taking action and rejected the defendant’s arguments, holding that there was no valid agreement authorizing them to use the trademark. The court made it clear that family negotiations or private settlements could not override the trademark rights held by a corporate entity unless formally agreed upon.
Similarity between the cases
The case of Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. vs Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd and the recent case of Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Ltd. V. BCCI & Anr. Both cases are of trademark infringement with the same name being used by another proprietor for commercial benefit, and the plaintiffs claim dilution of the brand value, as in the Atlas case, the cycles were sold by using the tradename of Atlas, even though by a family member without prior permission. In the case of the publisher of Champak magazines, the use of the name Champak without permission for the robotic dog in the IPL matches was claimed to be an infringement. Although both cases involve certain similarities, the court has not granted an injunction for the use of the name Champak, as it is not satisfied with the urgent requirement.
Conclusion
The dispute between Delhi Press and the BCCI involves the complexities of trademark law in the digital era and AI. While the name of the robotic dog “Champak” may seem harmless, its name carries significant commercial and cultural value due to its long-standing association with the beloved children’s magazine. The Court’s decision to issue notice reflects a balanced approach. This case may set an important precedent on brand dilution, use of the same names in different industries, the role of how the public perceives them, and the scope of protection of well-known marks under Indian trademark law.
REFFERENCES
- Case name – Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. (Case Number: CS(COMM) 395/2025) https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case-type-status-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#:~:text=1-,CS(COMM)%20395/2025,-30/04/2025
- “Champak vs BCCI: Delhi High Court Clash Over IPL’s Robotic Dog Name Sparks Legal Storm!” By Vaibhav Ojha, 30 April 2025
- Delhi High Court issues notice to BCCI over naming AI robot dog ‘Champak’, India Today
- The Champak Controversy: How “Naming A Dog” Led BCCI Into A Trademark Tussle By SpicyIP, May 8, 2025
- Delhi Press Patra Prakashan sues BCCI over ILP’s robot dog’s name ‘champak’, Md Zakariya Khan, Apr 30, 2025
Click the link to read similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/a-r-rahman-copyright-case/
