Delhi High Court Upholds Humorous Advertising in RCB v. Uber India Trademark Dispute

In a recent trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCB) challenged Uber India Systems Private Limited over a YouTube advertisement released ahead of the IPL 2025 match between Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) and RCB. The 59-second ad, titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head,” featured Australian cricketer Travis Head, an SRH player, portrayed as a mischievous character who altered a stadium sign from “Bengaluru v. Hyderabad” to “Royally Challenged Bengaluru.”

RCB, holding registered trademark rights over the name “Royal Challengers Bengaluru” and associated slogans, contended that Uber’s advertisement disparaged their brand and harmed its reputation. They argued that the phrase “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” implied incompetence, thereby damaging the team’s commercial goodwill. Additionally, RCB highlighted the use of the Kannada slogan “Ee Sala Cup Namde” (“This year the cup is ours”), closely linked with the team’s fan base, alleging that Uber unfairly exploited this emotional connection and diluted their trademark value.

The IPL franchise sought an interim injunction to remove the advertisement from online platforms, citing precedents where they had successfully protected their brand against disparagement, including prior litigation against Sun TV Network for objectionable use of their jersey.

Uber India refuted these claims, characterizing the suit as an overreaction to a humorous advertisement. They emphasized that the ad constituted good-natured sports banter, a culturally accepted aspect of cricket fandom in India, and did not make any false claims or seek unfair commercial advantage. Uber further invoked their constitutional right to commercial free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, referencing landmark judgments such as Tata Sons v. Puro Wellness and Colgate v. HUL to argue that humorous or exaggerated representations without factual misrepresentation should not amount to trademark infringement or disparagement.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the matter, denied RCB’s interim injunction application. The Court’s reasoning centered on two key legal issues: whether the advertisement constituted disparagement under trademark law, and whether it amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act.

On disparagement, the Court held that for an advertisement to qualify, it must explicitly degrade or falsely represent the claimant’s product or reputation with injurious intent. After reviewing the Uber advertisement in full, the Court found no such explicit falsehood or intent to injure. Instead, the ad was perceived as harmless, humorous sports-related banter, consistent with cultural norms surrounding cricket fandom. The Court cited precedents including Gillette India v. Reckitt Benckiser to support this interpretation.

Regarding trademark infringement, the Court clarified that mere use of a similar or identical mark does not suffice. There must be demonstrable commercial exploitation causing damage to the distinctive character or reputation of the original mark. Applying this standard, the Court concluded Uber had not undermined RCB’s trademark or unfairly benefited from its goodwill. The advertisement lacked elements of commercial exploitation or harm to RCB’s mark, leading to dismissal of the infringement claim.

The judgment underscored the importance of protecting commercial free speech, referencing Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment and the Supreme Court’s Tata Press Ltd v. MTNL decisions. Justice Banerjee cautioned against granting injunctions that unduly restrict creative advertising, especially when expressions fall within fair commentary or humour. The Court noted the absence of irreparable harm and observed positive public reactions, including from RCB fans, tipping the balance of convenience in favor of Uber.

This ruling aligns with Indian jurisprudence that distinguishes between explicit disparagement causing immediate harm and permissible parody or humour. For example, in Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal and ICICI Bank v. Ashok Thakeria, courts granted injunctions where negative assertions caused confusion or deception. In contrast, cases like Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International have permitted humorous alterations of trademarks, emphasizing artistic and commercial expression within reasonable limits.

Justice Banerjee’s decision reflects a nuanced approach that balances trademark protection with the cultural context of cricket and the value of commercial free speech. It encourages brands to engage constructively in public discourse, suggesting that playful rivalry and humour may better serve commercial and cultural interests than immediate litigation. Nonetheless, the judgment advises brand owners to seek competent IP legal review to ensure advertisements do not infringe third-party rights or violate laws.

This case marks a significant development in Indian trademark law, particularly regarding the interplay between disparagement claims and freedom of expression in advertising within the sports domain.