India’s digital entertainment space is evolving fast, and one of its most exciting frontiers is audio storytelling. If you’ve ever binged an audio series on Pocket FM or Kuku FM, you already know how immersive these platforms can be. From late-night thrillers to slow-burn romances, they’ve quietly built a new entertainment habit for millions.
But in 2025, the real drama isn’t inside the stories it’s in the courtroom.
The Background: How the Audio Boom Set the Stage
To understand the dispute, it is important to briefly note the evolution of the industry. Audio content in India was once limited to traditional formats like radio and audiobooks. However, platforms such as Pocket FM and Kuku FM transformed the space by introducing episodic, short-form storytelling released in parts, often ending on cliffhangers to retain audience engagement. This model significantly reshaped the industry and its commercial dynamics.
Suddenly:
- Content was being produced at a very high speed
- Writers and creators were working under tight deadlines
- Platforms were competing to release more stories, faster
And that’s where the problem begins.
In such a fast-paced system, overlaps are almost inevitable. Two creators may think of similar themes revenge, romance, fantasy, or ambition. But when similarities go beyond themes and start affecting how the story unfolds, questions arise.
In 2022, there were already quiet concerns in the industry about content being “too similar.” These didn’t immediately turn into lawsuits, but they hinted at growing discomfort.
By 2025, that discomfort turned into direct legal action.
Pocket FM decided that what was happening was not coincidence but copying.
The Dispute: What Pocket FM Alleged
In Pocket FM Private Limited v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited (CS(COMM) 686/2025)[1]Pocket FM approached the Delhi High Court with serious allegations.
Their claim was simple but strong:
Kuku FM was not just inspired it was replicating content.
According to Pocket FM, multiple shows on Kuku FM mirrored their own in:
- Plot development
- Character journeys
- Episode structure and pacing
- Titles, thumbnails, and overall presentation
Legally, Pocket FM relied on Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which protect original works and give creators exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute them.[2]
It was contended that such rights were being infringed in a systematic and commercial manner, resulting in substantial loss of revenue and consequent dilution of the brand’s distinctiveness and goodwill.
They also raised a modern issue SEO manipulation claiming that Kuku FM used search strategies to divert users who were actually looking for Pocket FM’s content.
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, destruction of infringing content, and damages amounting to approximately ₹85.7 crore
Kuku FM’s Defence: “Ideas Can’t Be Owned”
Kuku FM strongly denied these claims.
Their defence rested on a core principle of copyright law:
you can’t own an idea only the way it is expressed.
It was contended that:
- Their stories were independently created
- Similarities were based on common themes
- No substantial copying had taken place
- The lawsuit was a competitive strategy
This argument is backed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 (India), which clearly states that similarity in ideas is not infringement unless the expression is copied in a substantial way.[3]
They also draw strength from Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India).
where the Court clarified that copyright protects original expression involving skill and judgment, not just effort or general concepts.[4]
In essence, Kuku FM contended that mere similarity in narratives does not, in itself, establish copying or infringement.
What the Court Said: Understanding the Three-Part Test
At the interim stage, the Delhi High Court granted relief to Pocket FM by stopping Kuku FM from releasing further episodes of the disputed shows.
But how does a court decide something like this before the final judgment?
Courts typically apply a well-established three-pronged test while considering the grant of an injunction. Though rooted in legal principles, the framework is fairly intuitive when understood in context:
- Prima Facie Case (Existence of a Serious Question to be Tried)
At the outset, the Court examines whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case. This does not involve a conclusive determination of rights, but rather a preliminary assessment of whether the claim is bona fide and raises a serious triable issue. In other words, the Court considers whether the material on record discloses sufficient similarity or evidence to warrant judicial scrutiny. In the present case, the Court was of the considered view that such a threshold had been met. - Balance of Convenience (Comparative Hardship)
The Court then weighs the relative inconvenience or hardship that may be caused to each party depending on whether the injunction is granted or refused. This involves a comparative analysis: if the defendant is permitted to continue, the plaintiff may suffer loss of revenue and dilution of goodwill; conversely, restraining the defendant may result in temporary disruption to its business operations. The Court ultimately favours the course that minimizes overall harm. In this instance, the balance of convenience was found to tilt in favour of the plaintiff. - Irreparable Harm (Inadequacy of Monetary Compensation)
Finally, the Court considers whether the injury likely to be caused, in the absence of interim relief, would be irreparable in nature that is, incapable of being adequately compensated by damages. Harm such as loss of reputation, erosion of audience base, or weakening of market position is often regarded as irreparable, as monetary compensation alone cannot fully restore such losses. Accordingly, the Court was persuaded that the potential injury justified immediate intervention.
These principles are consistent with American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396 (HL). a leading case that Indian courts often rely on.[5]
By granting the injunction, the Court essentially said:
“This matter needs careful examination and until then, things should pause.”
When Similarity Becomes a Problem in the Digital World
This dispute is not just about copying stories it is also about how the content is presented and discovered by users. In today’s digital world, people often decide what to click within seconds, based on titles, thumbnails, or how something appears in search results. If two platforms look too similar, users can easily get confused and end up consuming content thinking it belongs to someone else. This is where the concept of passing off comes in. As held in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 (India).[6] even a likelihood of confusion is enough actual confusion doesn’t have to be proved.
What makes this case even more interesting is the role of technology. Pocket FM has also alleged that Kuku FM used SEO (search engine optimisation) tricks like keywords and metadata to attract users who were actually searching for Pocket FM’s content. This raises a very modern legal question: can algorithms be used unfairly to gain an advantage? Indian law does not have a clear answer yet, but cases like this could push courts to expand traditional rules and address how competition works in a digital, algorithm-driven space.
More Than a Verdict: Exploring the Court’s Options
In my view, this case, Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. v. Mebigo Labs Pvt. Ltd., is less about picking a winner and more about finding a sensible middle ground. The Court does have the option to go the traditional route carefully compare the shows and decide whether copying really happened, and if yes, then impose a ban or damages. But realistically, courts today also look at what actually works in business situations. That’s where mediation comes in. Instead of dragging the case for years, the Court might encourage both companies to sit down and figure things out maybe tweak or remove certain shows, agree on some form of compensation, or even work out a licensing deal. This way, both sides save time, money, and reputation. At the same time, the Court can still use the case to set some basic ground rules for the industry like how much similarity is too much, or whether using search tricks to pull in another platform’s audience is fair. So, in the end, the smartest outcome here may not be a strict “you win, you lose,” but a practical solution that lets both platforms move forward while making it clear where the legal line is.
Conclusion: Where Creativity Meets Law
The dispute between Pocket FM and Kuku FM shows that in today’s digital world, creativity alone is not enough legal boundaries matter just as much.
As platforms compete to create more content, faster than ever, the risk of overlap increases. But as this case highlights, there is a clear line:
You can be inspired but you cannot copy expression.
And as courts continue to interpret these issues, this case may well become a guiding example for the future of digital content in India.
Authored by: Shukriti kumari, 2022-2027 Lloyd School of Law
[1] Pocket FM Private Limited v. Mebigo Labs Private Limited (CS(COMM) 686/2025)
[2] Copyright Act, 1957, §§ 13–14 (India).
[3] R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 (India).
[4] Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India).
[5] American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396 (HL).
[6] Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 (India).