The Delhi High Court has asked the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to respond to a plea filed by the publishers of the popular children’s comic book Champak, alleging trademark infringement over the naming of the IPL’s AI robot dog “Champak”. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, hearing the case, noted that the Champak brand name was decades old, and he asked the BCCI and the Indian Premier League (IPL) to submit written statements in reply within four weeks. The case will be heard again on July 9, 2025.
Champak Publishers Seek Protection Against IPL’s Robotic Dog Naming
Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt Ltd, the owner of Champak, approached the court after the IPL introduced an AI-created robotic dog with the name “Champak” during a match. The introduction of the robotic dog on April 20, 2025, created a controversy with the publishers claiming that it is an infringement of their trademark because Champak is an internationally recognized children’s magazine. The Champak magazine has been on the stands since 1968 and is a recognized brand in India.
Plaintiff’s advocate Amit Gupta argued that the application of the name “Champak” to an entertainment feature of the IPL, a high-profile tournament telecast to more than 200 million viewers, had caused irreparable damage to their well-established trademark. Gupta contended that the use of the name for the robot dog watered down the brand’s uniqueness and spoiled its goodwill. He asserted, “This constitutes dilution by way of tarnishment, causing injury to the distinctiveness and positive public perception painstakingly built by the plaintiff over decades.”
IPL’s Robotic Dog Sparks Public Outrage
The publishers’ plea also mentioned that the choice of the name for the robotic dog was based on a social media poll, where the name “Champak” was favored immensely because of the brand’s recognition and goodwill. The publishers claimed that the continuous promotion of the name through various media platforms, such as news channels and social media, was aggravating the harm caused to their trademark. In doing so, they also sought an injunction restraining future use of the name and prayed for Rs 2 crore damages for the erosion of distinctiveness of their brand, goodwill, reputation, as well as injury due to trademark dilution.
BCCI Resists Trademark Infringement Petition
In the court hearings, senior lawyer J Sai Deepak, appearing for the BCCI, argued against the plea. He claimed that the term “Champak” was also the name of a flower and that the public would most probably connect the robotic dog with a character from a well-known TV show rather than the Champak magazine. Deepak further said, “Champak” as a name does not exclusively connote the plaintiff’s brand.
The case also raised an interesting point of contention when the court observed that the publishers have not taken any action against Indian cricketer Virat Kohli, whose nickname “Cheeku” is named after a Champak character. Justice Banerjee said, “When did you know about it? It is one of the characteristics of Champak. But you did not act against him, you have not taken any action against him.”
To this, the legal representative of Champak explained that Champak character names were informally used as nicknames, but that the matter at hand was one of the IPL’s commercial exploitation of their registered trademark. Gupta stressed, “Today my issue is the use of the word Champak, which is my registered trademark.”
Trademark Infringement and Its Impact on Well-Known Brands
The lawyers of the publishers then went on to state that the use of the name “Champak” for the robot dog by IPL was a conscious effort to utilize the established goodwill of the Champak brand for commercial gains. Since IPL matches receive huge viewership and social media platforms have such a broad reach, the plaintiffs are of the opinion that this usage constitutes an infringement of their intellectual property rights. They have called upon the court to take legal action against the IPL and BCCI in order to prevent their brand’s reputation and goodwill from suffering any more harm.
What’s Next for the Trademark Infringement Case on BCCI?
With the next hearing on July 9, 2025, the case continues to develop with implications for the resolution of trademark disputes in the entertainment and sports industries. As both sides prepare for additional legal action, the decision in this case could establish a major precedent for trademark protection in the era of digital media and commercial alliances between sports leagues and entertainment venues.
