The BCCI is facing a legal challenge over the name of its newly introduced AI robot dog, “Champak,” - featured during IPL 2025 broadcasts. The long-running children's publication Champak magazine has reportedly filed a trademark infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, as per media reports.
The magazine has reportedly claimed that the use of the name allegedly violates its registered trademark and misuses its brand identity.
The robot dog was recently unveiled as part of a new camera innovation during the ongoing IPL season. It was introduced by broadcast technology company wTVision in collaboration with Omnicam and the BCCI.
📲 Follow The Sporting News India on WhatsApp
BCCI face a lawsuit in Delhi High Court over naming IPL robot dog 'Champak'
During the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Saurabh Banerjee reportedly issued a notice on the interim injunction plea and granted four weeks for responses. The case was filed by Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. - the publisher of Champak magazine.
More: MS Dhoni told to retire from IPL: 'He doesn’t need to be there next year' - Adam Gilchrist
Their legal team reportedly argued that BCCI’s use of the name “Champak” amounts to trademark infringement. The magazine also reportedly claimed that the usage could mislead the public and damage the brand's reputation.
HAPPY HOUR: Get exclusive Happy Hour reload bonuses when you bet on IPL action, click here
The honourable Court said that the magazine had not yet clearly demonstrated how the use of the name by BCCI constituted commercial exploitation.
It also remarked that no detailed pleading had been submitted under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act - which deals with reputation-based infringement in unrelated categories.
BONUS: Click here to get exclusive sign-up bonuses and up to 200% cash boost when you bet on MI matches
How has BCCI responded to the lawsuit?
Representing BCCI, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak reportedly argued that “Champak” is a common name, also known as a flower and not exclusive to the magazine.
The defence pointed out that the name is associated with various characters and brands beyond the publication and that its use here was not meant to infringe upon or reference the magazine. The case will next be heard on July 9.