A Case Study of Pocket FM v. Kuku FM

A Case Study of Pocket FM v. Kuku FM. The rapid growth of digital audio platforms has created a commercially significant area for intellectual-property law. Platforms such as Pocket FM and Kuku FM operate not merely as distributors of audio recordings but as digital entertainment businesses dealing with stories, scripts, adaptations, audio recordings, characters, titles, branding and other forms of digital content. Consequently, questions relating to copyright ownership, licensing, adaptation rights, trademark protection, passing off and unfair competition have become increasingly important. 
The continuing litigation between Pocket FM Private Limited and Mebigo Labs Private Limited, the operator of Kuku FM, provides a useful contemporary case study of these issues. The disputes have involved questions concerning audio rights and, in later proceedings, allegations relating to similarities between audio series, titles, story elements, characters and other content. The litigation has proceeded through different procedural stages before the Delhi High Court. The dispute should not be characterised as a case in which a court has finally declared one platform to be an infringer. Rather, it involves separate proceedings and competing claims, some resulting in interim orders or undertakings rather than final adjudication on the merits. 
Background of Pocket FM and Kuku FM
Pocket FM and Kuku FM operate in the digital audio entertainment sector, offering audio stories, audiobooks, podcasts and related content. 
In Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 216/2021, the Delhi High Court considered competing claims concerning audio rights in Main Teri Chandani. The order dated 4 May 2021 records competing contractual positions concerning the relevant audio rights. At that stage, the Court did not finally determine the competing claims and directed notice to the relevant defendants before considering interim relief. 
In 2022, Mebigo Labs instituted Mebigo Labs Private Limited v. Pocket FM Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 809/2022, concerning a Hindi audio adaptation of Mossad: The Greatest Mission of the Israeli Secret Service. Mebigo claimed exclusive rights and licences concerning the relevant adaptation. Pocket FM stated that the audiobook had been uploaded inadvertently on the bona fide assumption that the underlying work was in the public domain, and that it had removed the audiobook after the issue was raised. The Court recorded the undertaking not to make it available without authorisation or licence and referred the parties to mediation. This was not a final adjudication of copyright infringement. 
The 2021 Litigation: Audio Rights and Contractual Authorisation
The 2021 proceedings illustrate the importance of contractual clarity in digital copyright transactions. The Court's order records competing contractual claims and communications concerning the audio rights in Main Teri Chandani.
The dispute demonstrates that possession of a copy of a literary work does not, by itself, establish the right to exploit that work in every possible form. Digital-content agreements should clearly identify ownership, assignment, exclusive or non-exclusive licensing, adaptation rights, audio rights, translation rights, territory, duration and rights of communication to the public. 
The 2022 Mossad Dispute
In Mebigo Labs Private Limited v. Pocket FM Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 809/2022, Mebigo claimed rights in a Hindi translation/audio adaptation of Mossad: The Greatest Mission of the Israeli Secret Service. Pocket FM stated that the audiobook had been uploaded inadvertently on the bona fide assumption that the work was in the public domain and that it had subsequently been removed. 
The Court directed that the audiobook not be made available through Pocket FM without authorisation or licence during the pendency of the suit or the copyright term, whichever was earlier, and the parties were referred to mediation. The case demonstrates the practical importance of verifying copyright status and chain of title before distributing third-party content. 
The 2025 Pocket FM v. Mebigo Litigation
In Pocket FM Private Limited v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited, CS(COMM) 686/2025, Pocket FM sought permanent injunctions and other reliefs in relation to alleged copyright infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices and competition, unjust enrichment, dilution, diversion of business, inducement for breach of contract, tortious interference and damages. 
Pocket FM's case concerned five audio series: Super Yoddha, Insta Empire, Amrapali, Vashikaran and The Immortal Warrior. It alleged similarities with series titled Shivay: Brahmaand ka Yoddha, Jobless Ghar Jamai, The Legend of Amrapali, Avtaar and Immortal Yoddha. Pocket FM alleged similarities extending beyond titles to imagery, scenery, character names and character traits. These were allegations advanced by the plaintiff, not findings finally determined after trial. 
The Delhi High Court's Order of 10 July 2025
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order on 10 July 2025. Pocket FM sought urgent interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court registered the suit, issued summons and notice, and allowed Mebigo an opportunity to respond. 
The Court directed Mebigo to disclose the number of episodes of each disputed series and relevant financial records concerning revenue generated from those series. It also directed that Mebigo should not launch, release or come out with new episodes of the five impugned series until the next date of hearing. 
This was interim protection, not a final finding of copyright or trademark infringement. It would therefore be inaccurate to state that the Court finally held Kuku FM liable for infringement on 10 July 2025. 
Copyright Issues
The Copyright Act, 1957 recognises copyright in specified categories of works, including original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings, subject to statutory requirements.
A digital audio production may involve several layers of intellectual property: the underlying literary work, script, dialogue, original characterisation, music, artwork, final sound recording, and translations or adaptations. Section 14 of the Copyright Act is relevant because it sets out the exclusive rights comprised in copyright, including rights relating to reproduction and, where applicable, adaptation and other forms of exploitation. 
Determining infringement therefore requires identification of the protected work, ownership or licensing rights, the particular exclusive right allegedly infringed and the material said to have been reproduced. 
Idea and Expression
Copyright does not ordinarily grant a monopoly over a general idea, theme or concept. Protection is directed towards original expression. This is particularly relevant to audio fiction because different works may independently use common themes such as romance, revenge, reincarnation, supernatural powers, wealth, family conflict or business rivalry. 
R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118, remains a leading Indian authority on the idea-expression distinction. Similarity of theme or plot does not by itself establish infringement; the relevant question concerns protected expression. 
Substantial Similarity in Digital Audio Content
Copyright infringement cannot ordinarily be established merely by showing that two works have similar titles or share a broad subject matter. The court may need to examine the nature and extent of similarity and whether protected expression has been reproduced in a substantial manner. 
In the 2025 litigation, Pocket FM alleged similarities involving imagery, scenery, character names and character traits. Whether those similarities establish infringement would depend upon the evidence and applicable legal principles. Since the July 2025 proceedings were interlocutory, the allegations should not be presented as a final judicial determination. 
Trademark and Passing Off
The dispute also raises questions concerning trademark and passing off. Pocket FM included allegations of passing off in its 2025 suit. Trademark and copyright perform different functions. Trademark law primarily protects source-identifying signs, while copyright protects qualifying original works. In digital entertainment, potentially protectable branding may include platform names, logos, distinctive programme titles, series names, character names, taglines and other source-identifying elements. 
Not every title automatically enjoys strong trademark protection. The strength of a mark may depend upon distinctiveness, use, registration, reputation and consumer perception. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, provides an important framework for deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion, although its principles should be applied by analogy rather than treated as a case on identical facts. 
Passing Off in the Digital Entertainment Industry
Passing off protects goodwill against misrepresentation causing, or likely to cause, damage. In Laxmikant
Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, the Supreme Court recognised the importance of protecting commercial goodwill against deceptive conduct. 
In a digital entertainment context, the issue may include whether consumers could believe that one audio series is associated with, authorised by or otherwise connected with another platform or content owner. Similarity of two programme titles should therefore not automatically be equated with passing off. 
Character Names and Character Traits
The 2025 allegations also concerned character names and character traits. A sufficiently original and well-developed fictional character may, depending upon the facts, attract copyright protection through the expression embodied in the character. However, copyright cannot ordinarily be used to monopolise a generic character type or archetype. The relevant inquiry is whether protectable expression associated with a sufficiently delineated character has been copied. 
Licensing and Chain of Title
The earlier proceedings demonstrate why licensing is particularly important for digital audio businesses. Content may be acquired from authors, publishers, production houses, independent creators, translators or other rights holders. A platform should verify who owns the underlying copyright, who has authority to license it, whether audio, adaptation and translation rights are included, whether the licence is exclusive, its duration and territory, and whether sublicensing is permitted. 
The Mossad proceedings provide a practical illustration: Mebigo asserted rights in the relevant Hindi translation/audio adaptation, while Pocket FM stated that the audiobook had been uploaded inadvertently and subsequently removed. 
Interim Injunctions and Digital Content
Interim relief can have particular commercial significance in digital-content disputes. Digital content can be distributed rapidly and reach a large audience. If allegedly infringing content remains available, consequences may include diversion of users, loss of exclusivity and potential revenue impacts. 
The 10 July 2025 order illustrates this dimension by requiring financial disclosures relating to the five disputed series and temporarily restraining Mebigo from releasing new episodes pending the next hearing. This should not be confused with a final determination of liability. 
Procedural Caution
The Pocket FM–Kuku FM litigation demonstrates why legal writing must distinguish between procedural stages. There is a substantial difference between a plaintiff alleging infringement and a court finding infringement; likewise between an interim order and a final decree following adjudication on the merits. 
The 10 July 2025 order in CS(COMM) 686/2025 registered the suit, issued summons and granted limited interim protection concerning new episodes while the defendant was given an opportunity to respond. It did not finally determine the copyright or passing-off claims. 
Broader Significance for Indian IP Law
The disputes demonstrate several lessons. First, digital content is an important IP asset: stories, scripts, recordings, adaptations and characters may have substantial commercial value. Second, copyright
ownership must be documented through a clear chain of title and properly drafted licences. Third, copyright and trademark serve different functions. Fourth, similar titles require contextual analysis. Fifth, digital businesses may require rapid IP enforcement because online content can be distributed quickly. Sixth, evidence is central, including scripts, recordings, metadata, licensing agreements, publication dates, character descriptions, artwork and platform records. 
Conclusion
The continuing disputes between Pocket FM and Kuku FM provide a useful contemporary case study of intellectual-property protection in India's digital audio entertainment industry. The litigation demonstrates that the value of a digital audio platform extends beyond its technology. Its commercially significant assets may include literary works, scripts, adaptations, sound recordings, characters, artwork, trademarks and content libraries. 
The 2021 proceedings illustrate the importance of contractual rights concerning audio exploitation, while the 2022 Mossad proceedings demonstrate the importance of verifying licensing and authorisation before distributing third-party content. The 2025 litigation demonstrates how copyright and passing-off claims may arise when one platform alleges that another has reproduced elements of its audio series. However, the Delhi High Court's order dated 10 July 2025 provided limited interim protection and required disclosure while the defendant was given an opportunity to respond; it did not constitute a final adjudication that Mebigo Labs or Kuku FM had infringed Pocket FM's intellectual-property rights.

The rapid growth of digital audio platforms has created a commercially significant area for intellectual-property law. Platforms such as Pocket FM and Kuku FM operate not merely as distributors of audio recordings but as digital entertainment businesses dealing with stories, scripts, adaptations, audio recordings, characters, titles, branding and other forms of digital content. Consequently, questions relating to copyright ownership, licensing, adaptation rights, trademark protection, passing off and unfair competition have become increasingly important.

The continuing litigation between Pocket FM Private Limited and Mebigo Labs Private Limited, the operator of Kuku FM, provides a useful contemporary case study of these issues. The disputes have involved questions concerning audio rights and, in later proceedings, allegations relating to similarities between audio series, titles, story elements, characters and other content. The litigation has proceeded through different procedural stages before the Delhi High Court. The dispute should not be characterised as a case in which a court has finally declared one platform to be an infringer. Rather, it involves separate proceedings and competing claims, some resulting in interim orders or undertakings rather than final adjudication on the merits.

Background of Pocket FM and Kuku FM

Pocket FM and Kuku FM operate in the digital audio entertainment sector, offering audio stories, audiobooks, podcasts and related content.

In Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 216/2021, the Delhi High Court considered competing claims concerning audio rights in Main Teri Chandani. The order dated 4 May 2021 records competing contractual positions concerning the relevant audio rights. At that stage, the Court did not finally determine the competing claims and directed notice to the relevant defendants before considering interim relief.

In 2022, Mebigo Labs instituted Mebigo Labs Private Limited v. Pocket FM Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 809/2022, concerning a Hindi audio adaptation of Mossad: The Greatest Mission of the Israeli Secret Service. Mebigo claimed exclusive rights and licences concerning the relevant adaptation. Pocket FM stated that the audiobook had been uploaded inadvertently on the bona fide assumption that the underlying work was in the public domain, and that it had removed the audiobook after the issue was raised. The Court recorded the undertaking not to make it available without authorisation or licence and referred the parties to mediation. This was not a final adjudication of copyright infringement.

The 2021 Litigation: Audio Rights and Contractual Authorisation

The 2021 proceedings illustrate the importance of contractual clarity in digital copyright transactions. The Court's order records competing contractual claims and communications concerning the audio rights in Main Teri Chandani.

The dispute demonstrates that possession of a copy of a literary work does not, by itself, establish the right to exploit that work in every possible form. Digital-content agreements should clearly identify ownership, assignment, exclusive or non-exclusive licensing, adaptation rights, audio rights, translation rights, territory, duration and rights of communication to the public.

The 2022 Mossad Dispute

In Mebigo Labs Private Limited v. Pocket FM Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 809/2022, Mebigo claimed rights in a Hindi translation/audio adaptation of Mossad: The Greatest Mission of the Israeli Secret Service. Pocket FM stated that the audiobook had been uploaded inadvertently on the bona fide assumption that the work was in the public domain and that it had subsequently been removed.

The Court directed that the audiobook not be made available through Pocket FM without authorisation or licence during the pendency of the suit or the copyright term, whichever was earlier, and the parties were referred to mediation. The case demonstrates the practical importance of verifying copyright status and chain of title before distributing third-party content.

The 2025 Pocket FM v. Mebigo Litigation

In Pocket FM Private Limited v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited, CS(COMM) 686/2025, Pocket FM sought permanent injunctions and other reliefs in relation to alleged copyright infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices and competition, unjust enrichment, dilution, diversion of business, inducement for breach of contract, tortious interference and damages.

Pocket FM's case concerned five audio series: Super Yoddha, Insta Empire, Amrapali, Vashikaran and The Immortal Warrior. It alleged similarities with series titled Shivay: Brahmaand ka Yoddha, Jobless Ghar Jamai, The Legend of Amrapali, Avtaar and Immortal Yoddha. Pocket FM alleged similarities extending beyond titles to imagery, scenery, character names and character traits. These were allegations advanced by the plaintiff, not findings finally determined after trial.

The Delhi High Court's Order of 10 July 2025

Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order on 10 July 2025. Pocket FM sought urgent interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court registered the suit, issued summons and notice, and allowed Mebigo an opportunity to respond.

The Court directed Mebigo to disclose the number of episodes of each disputed series and relevant financial records concerning revenue generated from those series. It also directed that Mebigo should not launch, release or come out with new episodes of the five impugned series until the next date of hearing.

This was interim protection, not a final finding of copyright or trademark infringement. It would therefore be inaccurate to state that the Court finally held Kuku FM liable for infringement on 10 July 2025.

Copyright Issues

The Copyright Act, 1957 recognises copyright in specified categories of works, including original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings, subject to statutory requirements.

A digital audio production may involve several layers of intellectual property: the underlying literary work, script, dialogue, original characterisation, music, artwork, final sound recording, and translations or adaptations. Section 14 of the Copyright Act is relevant because it sets out the exclusive rights comprised in copyright, including rights relating to reproduction and, where applicable, adaptation and other forms of exploitation.

Determining infringement therefore requires identification of the protected work, ownership or licensing rights, the particular exclusive right allegedly infringed and the material said to have been reproduced.

Idea and Expression

Copyright does not ordinarily grant a monopoly over a general idea, theme or concept. Protection is directed towards original expression. This is particularly relevant to audio fiction because different works may independently use common themes such as romance, revenge, reincarnation, supernatural powers, wealth, family conflict or business rivalry.

R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118, remains a leading Indian authority on the idea-expression distinction. Similarity of theme or plot does not by itself establish infringement; the relevant question concerns protected expression.

Substantial Similarity in Digital Audio Content

Copyright infringement cannot ordinarily be established merely by showing that two works have similar titles or share a broad subject matter. The court may need to examine the nature and extent of similarity and whether protected expression has been reproduced in a substantial manner.

In the 2025 litigation, Pocket FM alleged similarities involving imagery, scenery, character names and character traits. Whether those similarities establish infringement would depend upon the evidence and applicable legal principles. Since the July 2025 proceedings were interlocutory, the allegations should not be presented as a final judicial determination.

Trademark and Passing Off

The dispute also raises questions concerning trademark and passing off. Pocket FM included allegations of passing off in its 2025 suit. Trademark and copyright perform different functions. Trademark law primarily protects source-identifying signs, while copyright protects qualifying original works. In digital entertainment, potentially protectable branding may include platform names, logos, distinctive programme titles, series names, character names, taglines and other source-identifying elements.

Not every title automatically enjoys strong trademark protection. The strength of a mark may depend upon distinctiveness, use, registration, reputation and consumer perception. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, provides an important framework for deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion, although its principles should be applied by analogy rather than treated as a case on identical facts.

Passing Off in the Digital Entertainment Industry

Passing off protects goodwill against misrepresentation causing, or likely to cause, damage. In Laxmikant

Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, the Supreme Court recognised the importance of protecting commercial goodwill against deceptive conduct.

In a digital entertainment context, the issue may include whether consumers could believe that one audio series is associated with, authorised by or otherwise connected with another platform or content owner. Similarity of two programme titles should therefore not automatically be equated with passing off.

Character Names and Character Traits

The 2025 allegations also concerned character names and character traits. A sufficiently original and well-developed fictional character may, depending upon the facts, attract copyright protection through the expression embodied in the character. However, copyright cannot ordinarily be used to monopolise a generic character type or archetype. The relevant inquiry is whether protectable expression associated with a sufficiently delineated character has been copied.

Licensing and Chain of Title

The earlier proceedings demonstrate why licensing is particularly important for digital audio businesses. Content may be acquired from authors, publishers, production houses, independent creators, translators or other rights holders. A platform should verify who owns the underlying copyright, who has authority to license it, whether audio, adaptation and translation rights are included, whether the licence is exclusive, its duration and territory, and whether sublicensing is permitted.

The Mossad proceedings provide a practical illustration: Mebigo asserted rights in the relevant Hindi translation/audio adaptation, while Pocket FM stated that the audiobook had been uploaded inadvertently and subsequently removed.

Interim Injunctions and Digital Content

Interim relief can have particular commercial significance in digital-content disputes. Digital content can be distributed rapidly and reach a large audience. If allegedly infringing content remains available, consequences may include diversion of users, loss of exclusivity and potential revenue impacts.

The 10 July 2025 order illustrates this dimension by requiring financial disclosures relating to the five disputed series and temporarily restraining Mebigo from releasing new episodes pending the next hearing. This should not be confused with a final determination of liability.

Procedural Caution

The Pocket FM–Kuku FM litigation demonstrates why legal writing must distinguish between procedural stages. There is a substantial difference between a plaintiff alleging infringement and a court finding infringement; likewise between an interim order and a final decree following adjudication on the merits.

The 10 July 2025 order in CS(COMM) 686/2025 registered the suit, issued summons and granted limited interim protection concerning new episodes while the defendant was given an opportunity to respond. It did not finally determine the copyright or passing-off claims.

Broader Significance for Indian IP Law

The disputes demonstrate several lessons. First, digital content is an important IP asset: stories, scripts, recordings, adaptations and characters may have substantial commercial value. Second, copyright

ownership must be documented through a clear chain of title and properly drafted licences. Third, copyright and trademark serve different functions. Fourth, similar titles require contextual analysis. Fifth, digital businesses may require rapid IP enforcement because online content can be distributed quickly. Sixth, evidence is central, including scripts, recordings, metadata, licensing agreements, publication dates, character descriptions, artwork and platform records.

Conclusion

The continuing disputes between Pocket FM and Kuku FM provide a useful contemporary case study of intellectual-property protection in India's digital audio entertainment industry. The litigation demonstrates that the value of a digital audio platform extends beyond its technology. Its commercially significant assets may include literary works, scripts, adaptations, sound recordings, characters, artwork, trademarks and content libraries.

The 2021 proceedings illustrate the importance of contractual rights concerning audio exploitation, while the 2022 Mossad proceedings demonstrate the importance of verifying licensing and authorisation before distributing third-party content. The 2025 litigation demonstrates how copyright and passing-off claims may arise when one platform alleges that another has reproduced elements of its audio series. However, the Delhi High Court's order dated 10 July 2025 provided limited interim protection and required disclosure while the defendant was given an opportunity to respond; it did not constitute a final adjudication that Mebigo Labs or Kuku FM had infringed Pocket FM's intellectual-property rights.