From Storybook to Stadium: Children’s Magazine Champak Takes BCCI to Court

By Vikrant Rana and Akansha Arora

Introduction

In a unique and intriguing legal development, Delhi Press Patra Prakashan, the publisher of the iconic children’s magazine Champak has filed a lawsuit against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in the High Court of Delhi, alleging trademark infringement over the use of the name “Champak” for AI-powered robotic dog recently unveiled by BCCI – a name identical to the children’s magazine published since 1968. The case of Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt Ltd (herein referred to as the plaintiff) vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) (herein referred to as the defendant) raises substantial issues relating to intellectual property rights, trademark law, dilution of brand identity, and the balancing act between creative freedom and brand protection.
This legal dispute underscores the growing complexities in trademark law, especially in an era where digital innovation and artificial intelligence are increasingly intersecting with established brand identities. The case is expected to delve into crucial questions regarding whether long-standing trademarked names can be repurposed for entirely new technological advancements and how courts should navigate disputes involving legacy brands versus modern AI-driven creations.
Additionally, it brings attention to the impact of brand dilution, as consumers might associate the name “Champak” with BCCI’s robotic dog rather than the beloved children’s publication that has existed for over five decades. With the High Court’s involvement, the ruling in this case could set a significant precedent for future trademark conflicts, potentially reshaping how brands defend their intellectual property in an ever-evolving digital and entertainment landscape.

Facts of the case

In early 2025, BCCI introduced a novel addition to its promotional activities — a robotic dog designed to interact with fans, especially children, during the Indian Premier League (IPL). Its name was chosen through a fan poll, with “Champak” winning over alternatives like “Chulbul” and “Jaffa”. The dog, part of BCCI’s new technology-driven fan engagement strategy, was widely publicized. However, this move drew the ire of Champak, a children’s magazine established in 1969 by Delhi Press.
Champak is one of India’s most popular children’s magazines, known for its engaging stories, puzzles, comics, and educational content and has been a beloved part of childhood for generations, fostering creativity, imagination, and reading skills among young readers, which has enjoyed decades of recognition and goodwill in India. The Plaintiff claims that the use of the name “Champak” by BCCI amounts to unauthorised exploitation of their trademark and brand equity, especially as the robotic dog also targets a young audience.
Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi, seeking an injunction against BCCI’s use of the name, damages for alleged dilution and infringement, and directions for rebranding the robotic dog.

Key allegations

1. Trademark Infringement– Trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 occurs when a registered trademark is used by another party without permission, in a manner likely to cause confusion or deception regarding the origin of goods or services. Champak magazine claims exclusive rights to the name, registered under Class 16 (publications). The BCCI’s use of “Champak” for commercial purposes allegedly violates Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
2. Trademark Dilution– The Plaintiff also contends that associating the “Champak” name with a robotic dog risks diluting its brand’s distinctiveness and identity, especially among its young audience. Such use could weaken the magazine’s unique brand image and reduce the value and recognition it has built over time among its youthful audience.
3. Unfair Commercial Advantage: The Plaintiff accuses BCCI of unfairly benefiting from the magazine’s established reputation by using the “Champak” name. This unauthorized use allows BCCI to gain undue publicity and commercial advantage by capitalizing on the goodwill and popularity that rightfully belong to the magazine.

Growth and Positioning Strategies

Beyond the legal battle, the case reflects broader commercial considerations:

• Strengthening Champak’s Brand Protection: The ongoing battle highlights the importance of brand recognition and legal safeguards for legacy names. With this case drawing attention, Delhi Press has a strong growth opportunity to solidify Champak’s status by filing for a “Well-known application” for its trademark ‘CHAMPAK’. Such a move would not only enhance its protection but also strengthen its market presence for future expansion.
• Brand Strategy: Established brands like Champak must vigilantly guard against unauthorised use to maintain their distinctiveness. The ongoing legal action against BCCI highlights the importance for legacy brands to respond promptly to any unauthorized use that could harm their reputation or confuse their audience.
• Growth Prospects: If Champak prevails, it could signal its intent to expand into merchandising, character licensing, or even animated series, and a favourable decision for Champak could pave the way for the brand to explore more business opportunities.
• Precedent for Sports Bodies: A decision against BCCI could make sports organizations more cautious in adopting names, requiring thorough IP due diligence. This could lead to more rigorous brand vetting processes within the sports industry to avoid similar disputes.
• Safeguarding Intellectual Property in Children’s Content: The case highlights the necessity for children’s brands to proactively safeguard their intellectual property portfolios, especially as their characters and content increasingly appear across multimedia platforms.
• Strategic Naming Practices: Newer brands must conduct more rigorous trademark clearance searches before launching mascots, robots, or characters.
• Cultural Names: Indian courts have recognised that while names can be valuable commercial assets, exclusive rights over common Indian names-especially those with cultural or religious significance not easily granted. Courts may need to further clarify the extent to which such names can be monopolised for commercial purposes, balancing trademark protection with public interest and cultural sensitivity

Foreseeable Developments

The case could resolve in multiple ways:

• Injunction and Rebranding: If the court favours the Champak magazine, BCCI may be ordered to stop using the name “Champak” and rebrand the robotic dog, potentially paying damages for trademark infringement and brand dilution.
• Settlement: An out-of-court settlement is likely, where BCCI could pay a licensing fee or voluntarily change the name to avoid prolonged litigation and negative publicity.
• Dismissal: The suit could be dismissed if the court finds no likelihood of confusion or determines that “Champak” is a generic term not exclusively linked to the magazine.
• Partial Relief: The court might allow BCCI limited use of the name with disclaimers to prevent public confusion, balancing both parties’ interests.

Analysis

• Given Champak’s longstanding presence in the market and its association with children’s entertainment, it is reasonable to argue that BCCI’s use of “Champak” may lead to confusion about an association, endorsement, or collaboration between the magazine and the BCCI event.
• Even though a magazine and a robotic dog are distinct products, trademark law increasingly recognizes the concept of brand expansion. If Champak can show that its brand extends to merchandise, educational toys, and other child-related products (as is common for children’s brands), a stronger case for confusion may arise.
• Champak could argue that the use of its name in a commercial sporting event, potentially involving activities inconsistent with its values (e.g., aggressive marketing or commercialization) dilutes the wholesome, educational character of its brand.

Conclusion

The Champak vs. BCCI lawsuit highlights the evolving landscape of trademark law in India, especially as brands diversify into multimedia platforms and unconventional marketing strategies.
While the magazine seeks to protect its legacy, BCCI’s technological experiment reflects modern branding strategies. The court’s ruling will hinge on whether “Champak” is deemed a well-known mark deserving cross-sector protection or a term open to commercial use for different goods and services. Either way, the outcome will shape future trademark disputes, particularly those involving digital advancements and public engagement initiatives. As the matter remains sub judice, stakeholders await clarity on balancing creativity with legal safeguards in an increasingly interconnected world. Whether the High Court grants an injunction or nudges the parties toward a commercial settlement, this case will undoubtedly leave a lasting impact on how IP rights are navigated in the context of India’s vibrant sports and media ecosystems.
Currently, the court has not granted an interim injunction and is scheduled to hear the case further in July 2025. The final ruling will have important implications for trademark protection in India’s evolving digital and entertainment landscape.