India's digital audio industry has grown at a remarkable pace, with platforms like Pocket FM and Kuku FM competing fiercely for subscribers, content, and advertiser revenue. But their rivalry has now spilled into the courtroom — and the legal questions it raises will shape how intellectual property rights are understood and enforced across India's entire streaming ecosystem. The Pocket FM v. Kuku FM dispute before the Delhi High Court is not merely a corporate battle between two competitors. It is a landmark test case for copyright in audio content, trademark rights over programme titles, and the emerging legal frontier of SEO manipulation as an act of passing off.
Background: How the Dispute Began
The conflict between Pocket FM (Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd.) and Kuku FM (Mebigo Labs Pvt. Ltd.) has two distinct phases. The first arose in 2022, when Kuku FM sued Pocket FM, alleging that Pocket FM had used Kuku FM's licensed Hindi translation of the book "Mossad" without authorisation. Pocket FM subsequently removed the audiobook from its platform — an act that, while resolving the immediate issue, signalled the fragility of rights management in the rapidly expanding audio content market.
The second and more significant phase began in July 2025, when Pocket FM filed its own suit against Kuku FM before the Delhi High Court (CS(COMM) 686/2025). Pocket FM alleged that Kuku FM had infringed the copyright in five of its flagship audio series — including Immortal Warrior, Vashikaran, and Insta Empire — by duplicating their storylines, characters, and creative expression under confusingly similar titles. Pocket FM also alleged that Kuku FM had manipulated search engine optimisation (SEO) metadata — effectively embedding Pocket FM's show titles as keywords — to divert organic search traffic away from Pocket FM's platform. The Delhi High Court restrained Kuku FM from releasing further content under the disputed titles and directed it to disclose its financial records related to the alleged works.
Copyright Law Analysis: What Pocket FM Must Prove
The copyright claims in this dispute are governed by the Copyright Act, 1957. Under Section 13, copyright subsists in original literary works and sound recordings. Section 14(a) grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to publish, reproduce, and distribute the work. Pocket FM's allegation is that Kuku FM reproduced not merely the themes or concepts of its audio series — which are unprotectable — but the specific creative expression: the characters, narrative structures, dialogue patterns, and the particular way in which those themes were developed and presented to audiences.
This is a crucial distinction. Copyright law does not protect ideas, but it does protect the original and specific form in which those ideas are expressed. A story about a warrior who gains supernatural powers is an unprotectable idea. But the particular characters in Pocket FM's version, the way they interact, the specific plot developments, and the distinctive presentation of that story are all capable of copyright protection — provided they satisfy the originality threshold under Indian law.
Infringement under Section 51 requires Pocket FM to establish that Kuku FM reproduced a substantial part of the protected expression without authorisation. The court will also need to examine whether Kuku FM's works are independently created original works that merely share a common theme — or derivative works that cross the line into infringement.
The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and the RG Anand Test
The foundational framework for assessing copyright infringement in India comes from the Supreme Court's decision in RG Anand v. Deluxe Films — a seven-point test built around the idea-expression dichotomy. The Court held that copyright does not protect plots, themes, or general story concepts, but it does protect the original form, arrangement, and manner in which those ideas are expressed. Where two works draw on a common source or genre, similarities are expected and do not constitute infringement. But where the expression is literally or substantially imitated, a copyright violation may be established.
The standard the court applies is that of a reasonable lay person — if an ordinary reader or listener would come away with the impression that one work is a copy of the other, infringement is likely. In the audio context, this test will require the Delhi High Court to carefully compare the specific narrative elements, characters, and creative choices in Pocket FM's series against their alleged counterparts on Kuku FM. The fact that some episodes of Kuku FM's series apparently ended with the line "To know the rest of the story, log in to Pocket FM" — if proven — would be powerful evidence of direct copying rather than coincidental similarity.
Audiobooks, Summaries and Fair Dealing
The dispute also raises an important question about the legal character of audio summaries and audiobook adaptations. Under Section 2(a) of the Copyright Act, "adaptation" includes the conversion of a work from one form to another — a printed book converted into an audio recording is an adaptation, and creating such an adaptation without the rights holder's consent is an infringement. Pocket FM claims exclusive licences to produce Hindi audiobooks of popular English titles, making Kuku FM's alleged production of the same titles without authorisation a direct infringement of those licences.
The position is more nuanced for audio summaries — shortened or condensed versions of a work. A summary created with independent creative judgment and substantially rewritten may itself qualify as an original literary work, distinct from the underlying source. However, a summary that closely tracks the structure, key passages, and distinctive elements of the original crosses into infringement. The fair dealing exception under Section 52 — which permits use of a work for review, criticism, or the dissemination of knowledge — could theoretically be raised, but its applicability depends on whether the use is truly transformative, whether the purpose is genuinely informational, and whether it adversely affects the market for the original. Given the commercial nature of Kuku FM's platform, a fair dealing defence would face significant headwinds.
SEO and ASO Manipulation as IP Infringement
One of the most legally novel aspects of this case is Pocket FM's allegation that Kuku FM embedded Pocket FM's show titles directly into its metadata, tags, and app store descriptions — effectively using Pocket FM's brand identifiers to improve Kuku FM's search rankings and app store visibility. This practice, if proven, raises serious questions at the intersection of trademark law, passing off, and unfair competition.
Businesses invest significantly in search engine optimisation to ensure their content ranks prominently on Google and other search engines. Similarly, app store optimisation (ASO) improves an app's discoverability on the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. When a competitor deliberately incorporates another brand's trademarked titles or show names into its own metadata, the effect is to divert users who are specifically searching for that competitor's content — a clear case of free-riding on established goodwill.
International jurisprudence on this point is divided. In the US case North American Medical v. Axiom, courts found that embedding a competitor's trademark in metatags could create actionable confusion. Canadian courts in Vancouver Community College v. Vancouver Career College took a more restrained view, reasoning that users still exercise independent judgment when selecting search results. Indian jurisprudence on SEO manipulation remains underdeveloped — the Pocket FM case may well become the foundational Indian precedent on this question. The statutory hook is Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits advertising that takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of a registered mark.
💡 Key legal question: Does embedding a competitor's trademarked title in your own metadata, tags, or app description — to divert search traffic — constitute trademark infringement or passing off under Indian law? The Delhi High Court's answer in this case will set the standard for all digital platforms in India.
Trademark Law and Passing Off
The trademark dimension of this dispute involves both registered and unregistered rights. Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars statutory infringement actions for unregistered marks — but Section 27(2) expressly preserves the common law remedy of passing off. Passing off protects goodwill and reputation that has been built up through use, even without formal registration.
For Pocket FM to succeed in passing off, it must establish three elements: (1) it has goodwill in the titles — that consumers associate names like Immortal Warrior and Insta Empire with Pocket FM's platform; (2) Kuku FM's use of confusingly similar titles amounts to a misrepresentation — it creates a false impression that Kuku FM's content is associated with, or endorsed by, Pocket FM; and (3) this misrepresentation has caused or is likely to cause damage to Pocket FM's goodwill.
However, the protectability of each title varies significantly depending on its inherent distinctiveness. The legal spectrum — drawn from the US case Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World and applied in Indian courts — classifies marks as generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful. Titles like Immortal Warrior and Insta Empire are arguably suggestive or arbitrary — requiring a degree of imagination to connect the title to the audio series — and therefore carry inherent distinctiveness. In contrast, Vashikaran and Amrapali draw on deeply embedded cultural and spiritual vocabulary. A court would be hesitant to allow any one platform to monopolise these terms as exclusive identifiers without compelling evidence of secondary meaning — that is, that consumers specifically and exclusively associate these words with Pocket FM's shows rather than with their broader cultural connotations.
The Delhi High Court's analysis in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. provides a useful framework: the court must compare the marks for phonetic, visual, and conceptual similarity, consider the class of consumers likely to encounter both products, and assess whether confusion in the marketplace is probable. Titles like Immortal Yoddha (as against Immortal Warrior) and Avtaar (as against Vashikaran) carry both phonetic resonance and conceptual proximity — factors that increase the probability of consumer confusion, particularly on digital platforms where snap decisions are made based on thumbnails and brief title descriptions.
Brand Dilution Under Section 29(4)
Beyond the risk of direct confusion, Pocket FM has raised a dilution claim under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Dilution operates differently from standard infringement — it does not require proof that consumers are confused about the source of the goods or services. Instead, it protects marks that have achieved a level of fame or reputation, ensuring that third-party use does not blur or tarnish that distinctive identity — even if consumers are not actively misled.
The Delhi High Court articulated this principle in ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA, holding that dilution protection shields reputable marks from conduct that weakens their distinctiveness, even in the absence of direct competition or confusion. If Pocket FM can establish that its flagship series titles have achieved strong recognition among its subscriber base — through evidence of viewership numbers, marketing spend, media coverage, and consumer surveys — a dilution claim becomes plausible. The Sholay precedent is instructive: in Sholay Media & Entertainment v. Parag Sanghavi, the Delhi High Court recognised that the film title "Sholay" and the character "Gabbar Singh" had acquired such powerful secondary meaning that they deserved trademark-level protection against exploitation, even outside the direct film industry.
Way Forward and Broader Implications
The case presents the Delhi High Court with a set of difficult balancing exercises. On the copyright side, if Pocket FM establishes substantial similarity of expression — rather than merely similar themes — the court is likely to grant a continuing injunction restraining further reproduction. Monetary damages are more challenging to obtain in Indian courts unless bad faith is clearly established; an account of profits from the infringing works is a more likely monetary remedy.
On the trademark side, the court will likely extend stronger protection to inherently distinctive titles like Immortal Warrior and Insta Empire while requiring Pocket FM to establish secondary meaning before protecting culturally embedded terms like Vashikaran or Amrapali. Blanket injunctions preventing Kuku FM from using broad cultural terms would raise legitimate concerns about overreach and the chilling of creative competition.
The anti-competitive dimension of the case also deserves judicial attention. Kuku FM has alleged that the timing of Pocket FM's lawsuit — filed just as Kuku FM was preparing for a $70 million IPO — was designed to disrupt investor confidence rather than vindicate genuine IP rights. The damages claim of Rs. 85.7 crore is substantial enough to divert Kuku FM's resources, increase operational costs, and create significant due diligence concerns for prospective investors. Indian courts have long recognised that IP rights should not be deployed as instruments of anti-competitive strategy — a principle the Delhi High Court will need to keep firmly in view.
The most constructive long-term outcome for both parties — and for India's digital audio industry — may well be a negotiated co-existence agreement, licensing framework, or mutual content differentiation protocol, rather than a winner-takes-all judgment. The court's likely approach will be to ensure that original expression and established goodwill are protected, while ensuring that no single platform can monopolise broad cultural narratives, common genre tropes, or widely used vocabulary.
Conclusion
The Pocket FM v. Kuku FM dispute is more than a corporate rivalry. It is a defining moment for intellectual property enforcement in India's digital content economy. The questions it raises — about the protectability of audio series titles, the copyright status of audiobook adaptations, the legality of SEO manipulation, and the limits of passing off in the streaming era — do not yet have clear answers under Indian law. The Delhi High Court's eventual ruling will shape how content creators, streaming platforms, investors, and IP lawyers approach rights management in the audio space for years to come.
For businesses operating in digital media, the case is a timely reminder that IP protection cannot be an afterthought. Registering trademarks for content titles, maintaining clear chain-of-title documentation for licensed works, and implementing robust content monitoring systems are all essential steps — not optional ones.
If your business operates in the digital content space and you need advice on copyright licensing, trademark registration, or IP enforcement, contact Nikhil Soni & Co. for a confidential consultation →
Does your digital content or brand need IP protection?
Adv. Nikhil Soni advises media companies, content creators, and streaming platforms on copyright licensing, trademark registration, and IP enforcement — including passing off and infringement actions before the High Courts.