In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to the publisher of the famous children’s magazine Champak, which filed a lawsuit against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for using the name ‘Champak’ for a robotic dog during the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches.
The Heart of the Dispute: Trademark Infringement
The case began when the BCCI unveiled a robotic dog named ‘Champak’ during IPL 2025, which was introduced as a part of a fan-voting campaign. The name quickly caught the attention of media outlets and IPL fans, but for the publisher of Champak, a children’s magazine well-known for its animal characters, the name represented something much more personal. The magazine has been a beloved companion for children for years, and they argue that using the same name for a robotic dog at a commercial event like the IPL amounts to trademark infringement.
Legal Arguments and the Publisher’s Concerns
The publisher, through its legal team, made a compelling case arguing that the name ‘Champak’ was an integral part of its brand. Champak magazine, which has built a reputation over the years with its colourful animal characters, claims that the use of the same name for a robotic dog at such a high-profile commercial event like the IPL could dilute its brand identity. Advocate Amit Gupta, representing Delhi Press Patra Prakashan, argued that the media coverage and the commercial nature of the IPL further magnified the potential harm to the magazine’s brand.
Gupta explained that while the robot may be a distinct product, the name ‘Champak’ had long been associated with the children’s magazine. This overlap, according to Gupta, could cause confusion among children and fans, leading to an infringement on the magazine’s trademark.
Delhi High Court Reflections: Lack of Sufficient Evidence
While the Delhi High Court recognised the claims made by the publisher, it pointed out that there was a lack of concrete evidence to support the argument of unfair advantage or market dilution. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, questioned whether the BCCI’s use of the name truly caused harm to the magazine’s reputation or brand value. The judge further remarked that the name ‘Champak’ is not exclusive to the children’s magazine, as it is also a term used for a flower, and that the robotic dog’s character is linked to a well-known television show, not directly to the magazine.
The Delhi High Court observed that while there may be a possibility of harm, there was insufficient evidence to justify granting interim relief at this stage. As a result, the matter was scheduled for a further hearing on July 9, 2025. The court decided not to grant the ex-parte injunction the publisher had requested, which would have temporarily stopped the use of the name ‘Champak’ for the robotic dog during the IPL.
BCCI’s Defence: Unrelated to the Magazine
On the other hand, the BCCI’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, argued that the use of the name ‘Champak’ was unrelated to the magazine. He contended that ‘Champak’ is also the name of a flower and that its use for the robotic dog had no connection to the children’s publication. Furthermore, Deepak highlighted that the robotic dog was based on a character from a well-known television show, distancing it even further from the Champak magazine.
Trademark Protection in a Commercialised World
This case brings to the forefront an important question of trademark protection in today’s world, where names and brands can hold significant value and power in commercial settings. While it is common for names to be used across different contexts, the issue arises when a well-established brand like Champak feels that its identity is being threatened by a large-scale commercial enterprise like the IPL.
The debate also raises the broader issue of how trademarks can be protected in the age of globalised marketing and digital media, where names, logos, and brands often transcend traditional boundaries. For the publisher of Champak, the case is not just about a name it’s about maintaining the trust and connection they’ve built with their audience over decades.
The Legal Battle Continues: What’s Next?
As the legal battle continues, both parties will likely need to present more solid arguments regarding the commercial impact and potential market dilution caused by the use of the name ‘Champak’. The decision to name the robotic dog after a fan-voted character certainly has its fans, but for the publisher, it remains a potential infringement on their decades-old brand.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is based on public records and the current legal proceedings. It does not constitute legal advice or a definitive account of the case. Please consult a professional for further details.
Also Read:
Evolution and Scope of Administrative Law
When Law and Love Unite: Supreme Court Applauds Piplantri Tree Tradition
Uniform Civil Code is Not Just Law, It’s Humanity, Says Karnataka HC
