Champak Magazine's Trademark Infringement Suit Against BCCI Over IPL's Robotic Dog Name

In a recent legal development, Champak Magazine, published by Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited, has initiated a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The contention arises from the BCCI's naming of an AI robotic dog used during the Indian Premier League (IPL) as "Champak." The magazine asserts that this use infringes upon its registered trademark, potentially causing confusion among consumers and diluting its brand identity.

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, heard the matter and issued a notice on the interim injunction application filed by the magazine. The court granted the BCCI four weeks to file a written response. During the proceedings, the counsel for Champak Magazine argued that the BCCI's use of the name "Champak" in a commercial setting, particularly in association with a product that is marketed and earns revenue, constitutes trademark infringement. The counsel emphasized that such unauthorized use takes unfair advantage of the magazine's established brand.Mumbai Mirror

Justice Banerjee, however, questioned the commercial aspect of the BCCI's use of the name. He pointed out that the robotic dog, named "Champak," was part of a fan engagement initiative, where fans voted for the name. The judge noted that the magazine's pleadings did not adequately demonstrate the commercial element necessary to establish a case under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, which pertains to the use of a reputed trademark in unrelated goods or services.

In its defense, the BCCI, represented by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, contended that "Champak" is not a unique or coined term but is also the name of a flower. The BCCI argued that the term "Champak" is widely used and does not exclusively identify the magazine's publication. The counsel further asserted that the BCCI's use of the name in the context of the IPL's robotic dog does not infringe upon the magazine's trademark rights.

The case underscores the complexities involved in trademark disputes, particularly when a common term is used in different contexts. It highlights the need for clear evidence of commercial use and consumer confusion to substantiate claims of trademark infringement. As the legal proceedings continue, the Delhi High Court's decision will provide clarity on the application of trademark laws concerning the use of common terms in commercial settings.