Copyright And Trademark Enforcement In Digital Audio Industry: A Case Study Of Pocket FM V. Kuku FM

The case of Pocket FM and Kuku FM has become one of the major public disputes in the Indian audio entertainment space.^[1] The dispute began in 2022, when Kuku FM (Mebigo Labs Pvt. Ltd.) sued Pocket FM over accusations that Pocket FM had used Kuku FM's licensed Hindi translation of “Mossad.” Although Pocket FM subsequently deleted the audiobook from its catalogue, this first episode revealed uncertainties related to rights management. The rivalry deepened recently, when Pocket FM itself sued Kuku FM over allegedly misusing its works in a lawsuit filed in the Delhi High Court in July 2025.^[2] This article will focus on the nuances of copyright and trademark law applicable in the present dispute, and the factors that the court should also consider as a broader framework to adjudicate the case.

Background of the Case

In Pocket FM's case, it accused Kuku FM of copyright and trademark infringement. Pocket FM discussed the matter in relation to five series, which are flagships for Pocket FM, including 'Immortal Warrior', 'Vashikaran', and 'Insta Empire'. The claims were based on Pocket FM asserting Kuku FM for duplicating storylines, characters, and presentation under deceptively similar titles and that Kuku FM was manipulating the related search engine optimisation (SEO) metadata to siphon traffic from Pocket FM. Petitioners clearly articulated that Kuku FM's reproduction of protectable elements of its original literary or dramatic works was beyond just relying on generic themes. The trademark aspect arose from the claim that Kuku FM's use of confusingly similar titles was a source identifier that diminished Pocket FM's goodwill. Along with the passing off issues, the mimicry Kuku FM adopted may have caused consumers to believe that Kuku FM was associated with Pocket FM mistakenly. Although Kuku FM denied the allegations, the Court restrained Kuku FM from any further release related to the title and required Kuku FM to disclose its finances in relation to the same.

Copyright Infringement

The present conflict raises some pressing issues under the copyright law. Under the Copyright Act 1957, Section 13 states the works in which copyright subsists which includes literary works and sound recording whereas Section 14(a) vests with the copyright owner the exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, sell, etc. Here, Pocket FM is alleging that Kuku FM has infringed upon these rights by allegedly reproducing Pocket FM's expression of content and publishing it under its own name. If this is established, it could lead to copyright infringement claim under Section 51 (primary infringement) and would amount to an unauthorized use of Pocket FM's copyrighted material. In RG Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court laid down a seven-point test to determine copyright infringement which revolved broadly around the idea expression dichotomy. The Court clarified that copyright does not subsist in ideas, plots, or themes themselves but in their original expression, form, manner, or arrangement in which they are conveyed. When the source is common, parallels or similarities have a high tendency to happen. If the way of expressing the idea is literally or substantially imitated, it is a copyright violation. The standard of a reasonable layman is considered and if the person is of the impression that the work appears to be a copy of the original work, then it would be a copyright infringement.

Section 2(a) defines adaptation as including works that are adapted into a different form of work to form a derivative work. Pocket FM claims that it has the exclusive license to create audiobooks in Hindi of popular English-selling books. The term abridgement is not separately defined under the Act but is covered within the definition of adaptation (Section 2(a)(3)), which, in the case of audiobooks, is a form of adaptation from a book to a sound recording. However, in the case of audio summaries, they are shortened or condensed versions of a piece of work. They might be the original work of the creators involved, and it is largely dependent on the facts, degree of similarity, and creative thought and originality brought to each idea in expressing it. Additionally, the issue must be examined in light of the fair dealing exception under Section 52. Audio summaries can, in certain circumstances, be justified as reviews or for disseminating knowledge to the public. However, as argued in the case, it is dependent on a wide range of factors like the amount of originality used in the work, the purpose of audio summaries, etc., which has not yet been proved by the Court. Therefore, it would be premature to conclusively determine infringement claims, and the above are some of the legal positions that the court has to consider.

If Pocket FM's allegations are established, then this can confuse users either when they are searching for Pocket FM and its titles in search engines^[3] (Search Engine Optimisation) or in app stores^[4] (App Store Optimisation). This stems from the alleged fact that Kuku FM has directly copied show titles of Pocket FM into its own metadata, tags or descriptions, thereby causing its content to appear in search results when users look for Pocket FM. The substantial similarity and copying has also been pointed out by the Pocket FM's counsel as some episodes ended with a line, “To know the rest of the story, log in to Pocket FM.”

Moreover, companies invest significantly to ensure that their websites rank higher in search results on platforms like Google, by employing keywords as part of SEO. Similarly, app store optimisation (ASO) techniques are deployed to enhance the visibility of apps on platforms such as the Google Play Store and Apple's App Store through use of tag lines, keywords, and descriptive terms. This can also become a point of contention as use of Pocket FM's title will help Kuku FM to improve its own search rankings. Pocket FM claimed Kuku FM copied not just titles, but also the thumbnails and promotional materials. If both SEO and ASO is proven, this will mislead the users, causing them to associate Kuku FM's content with Pocket FM, in turn boosting Kuku FM's revenues. This has raised questions regarding whether the usage of a competitor's trademark in one's website would constitute as “dishonest” practices or unfair advantage? Here the provisions of passing off has been used under the trademark law to prevent confusion and avoid free riding on another competitor's goodwill. The following section will highlight some of the legal parameters of trademark that can be applied in this case.

Trademark and Passing Off

Section 27 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 explicitly bars any legal action for infringement of unregistered trademarks. However, a protection is explicitly provided by Section 27(2) with respect to the common-law remedy, which is called “passing off”, providing remedies to the extent that trademarks without registration have developed goodwill and customer recognition and are still protective against misrepresentation. Similarly, the reliefs available for passing off are similar to those provided for infringement of registered trademarks (Section 135). This statutory framework acknowledges the importance of protecting market identity where both registered and unregistered marks are concerned. Therefore, the examination of audio series titles such as 'Immortal Warrior', 'Vashikaran', 'Insta Empire', and 'Amrapali' would require an investigation into the distinctiveness under Section 2(zb), the potential for confusion under Section 29, and the possibility of dilution of the mark under Section 29(4) and the interplay of common law passing off.

The spectrum of distinctiveness emerged from Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World,^[5] where marks are identified as generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful. Titles like 'Immortal Warrior' or 'Insta Empire' could be classified as suggestive or arbitrary because they require a consumer to use some imagination to associate the titles with the underlying shows and therefore possess intrinsic distinctiveness. 'Vashikaran', on the contrary, derives from a cultural and spiritual vocabulary and may be more generically descriptive, so that a party seeking trademark protection must establish secondary meaning before the title may be afforded any protection. Indian courts have acknowledged the distinction noted above and denied protection for titles like “Scrabble” or other common terms in cases such as Mattel Inc. v. Jayant Agarwalla^[6] because there was a lack of distinctiveness evidence. Therefore, while some titles may easily substantiate a trademark without providing any evidence, others may need to show they acquired distinctiveness through long use and consumer association.

Under Section 29, as articulated in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,^[7] we need to consider factors including similarity of the marks, degree of resemblance, identity of goods and services, and class of purchasers. In the case at hand, names such as 'Immortal Yoddha' instead of 'Immortal Warrior' or 'Avtaar' instead of 'Vashikaran' have both a close phonetic and conceptual similarity to title names that already exist, which creates a risk of confusion amongst users. The likelihood of confusion is increased on an online platform where people often make quick purchasing decisions based on thumbnails, titles or metadata. Therefore, possible allegations of false advertising, search engine manipulation and use of Pocket FM's titles as keywords may be analyzed under Section 29(8), which stipulates that advertising that takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the mark is prohibited.

Section 29(4) dilution is a question raised by this case. The public's perception of Pocket FM's popular shows may become less distinct due to the use of similar titles, even in cases where consumers are not deceived into thinking the two services are the same. In ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA,^[8] the Delhi High Court made it clear that, even in the absence of direct competition, dilution shields reputable brands from obscuring and tarnishing. Reproducing Pocket FM's flagship titles under different names may be considered dilution and be eligible for relief if it is demonstrated that they have achieved a level of recognition equivalent to reputation. In Sholay Media & Entertainment v. Parag Sanghavi, the Delhi High Court recognized that the movie title Sholay and characters like “Gabbar Singh” had developed such a strong secondary meaning to be protected as trademarks. Similarly, audio series titles that have developed a strong association with their source might also be protected from unfair advantage, passing off, and dilution. Marks that lack distinctiveness or are customary in the trade are prohibited from being registered under Section 9(1), and courts have been hesitant to give monopolies over these kinds of expressions.

Way Forward

The Sholay decision illustrates the uncertain stance of the court; though the film's title and characters were recognised as trademarks, no quantitative benchmarks for public recognition were established, leaving protection dependent on judicial discretion. This problem resurfaces where terms like 'Vashikaran' or 'Amrapali' are culturally embedded and risk being monopolised without objective standards. Without clearer tests for secondary meaning, courts may expand protection too broadly, curtailing legitimate creative competition. Further complexity arises under Section 29(4), as Indian courts inconsistently define what constitutes “reputation” sufficient for dilution claims.

The challenge is compounded by digital practices such as SEO manipulation, where embedding keywords in metadata may divert users searching for one platform's shows to another. International jurisprudence is divided; in North American Medical v. Axiom (U.S.),^[9] metatags were found capable of creating actionable confusion, while Canadian courts in Vancouver Community College v. Vancouver Career College^[10] dismissed such claims, reasoning that users still exercise choice when clicking results, and metatags do not 'influence' them. It becomes clear that courts should be cautious in their approach as Indian jurisprudence on SEO is still underdeveloped, and international case laws do not provide a definitive solution.

Furthermore, the courts also need to ensure that such repetitive IP litigation, as in this case, does not come at the cost of claiming competitive advantage. As both companies are racing against each other to generate substantial revenue and expand their market presence, the Courts should not forget the anti-competitive tactics that might be slipped in. Kuku FM allegation is that these repeated legal actions are timed to disregard investor confidence in its upcoming IPO of around $70 million. This concern warrants due consideration, particularly as Pocket FM is claiming around Rs. 85.7 crore as damages. The damages claimed could significantly divert Kuku FM's resources from marketing, erode investor confidence, and increase operational costs. During investor due diligence, a multi-million-dollar lawsuit can be perceived as a substantial business risk. Therefore, IP protection should not be used as a leverage or as a strategic advantage to suppress competition.

Hence, the Court might take a restrained and preventative position. On the copyright side, if the plaintiff establishes substantial similarity of expression, the Court will likely grant an injunction restraining further reproduction. The plaintiff could claim monetary damages, but large amounts are rarely awarded unless bad faith is proven in Indian courts, although they could order the defendant to disclose revenues or provide an accounting of profits in relation to the alleged act to assess the economic impact of the alleged copying. On the trademark side, distinctive titles such as 'Immortal Warrior' or 'Insta Empire' are likely to receive a stronger level of protection, while a culturally descriptive title like 'Vashikaran' or 'Amrapali' is less likely to be monopolized, other than prove there is a secondary meaning. The Court would continue to prohibit further episodes from being released with confusingly similar names; however, would not grant an order that would bar using generic cultural expressions. The parties are more likely to be encouraged to seek alternative remedies such as co-existence agreements, considering the ongoing rivalry of the parties. the outcome is more likely to prioritise injunctive relief and cautious recognition of rights, ensuring protection of originality and goodwill without enabling overreach that could affect fair competition.

1. Mebigo Labs (P) Ltd. v. Pocket FM (P) Ltd. 2022:DHC:5168. ↑

2. Pocket Fm Private Limited v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited CS(COMM) 686/2025. ↑

3.Sanofi India Ltd. v. Universal Neutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 60 PTC 593 (Del). ↑

4. Rohit Singh v. Apple (2018) 75 PTC 184 (Del). ↑

5. Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World 537 F.2d 4 (1976). ↑

6. Mattel Inc. & Ors. v. Jayant Agarwalla & Ors. (2008) 38 PTC (416) (Del). ↑

7. Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73. ↑

8. ITC Ltd v. Philip Morris Products SA (2010) 42 PTC 572 (Del). ↑

9. North American Medical v. Axiom 2008 WL 918411 (11th Cir 7-4-2008). ↑

10. Vancouver Community College v. Vancouver Career College 2015 BCSC 1470. ↑

Authors are Law students at O.P. Jindal Global University. Views are personal.