For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Ms. Keerthana M, Advocate

ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED V. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS I.A. 9726/2025 CS(COMM) 345/2025

Advertisements play a crucial role in shaping consumer perceptions of products and services. With over 124 million cricket fans in the country, advertising revenue surges during events like the World Cup or IPL. Brands seize this opportunity with cleverly crafted campaigns, though some occasionally cross the line into disparagement.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1), Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant No. 2), and Travis Head (Defendant No. 3), a player for Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) in IPL 2025. The plaintiff, Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd., owner of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) franchise and its trademarks, alleged trademark misuse. The court held that the defendants’ advertisement constitutes fair use of trademarks and is merely a creative depiction of a healthy, light-hearted banter widely accepted by sporting fans.

FACTS

The advertisement opens with Defendant No. 3, Travis Head, riding pillion on an Uber Moto bike, introducing himself with the line: ‘I’m Travis Head, and we’re the Hyderabaddies.’ He and a companion sneak into a stadium and spray-paint ‘ROYALLY CHALLENGED’ above ‘BENGALURU’ on a poster that reads ‘BENGALURU V. HYDERABAD.’ As they flee, a banner featuring RCB’s iconic fan chant, ‘Ee Saala Cup Namde,’ is visible in the background. They escape on Uber Moto bikes, which arrive precisely within the scheduled three-minute pickup time. The scene is replayed with security guards in pursuit, and the ad concludes with the tagline: ‘Uber Moto—Official ride of the Hyderabaddies.’

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff argued that the reference to RCB as ‘Royally Challenged’ and the inclusion of the fan chant banner amounted to disparagement and trademark infringement. They further claimed that the tagline ‘Official ride of the Hyderabaddies’ implicitly associated the advertisement with the Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) team. According to the plaintiff, the ad exceeded the permissible boundaries of comparative advertising and did not qualify as fair use under trademark law.

The plaintiff cited the case of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Sun Pictures, A Division of Sun TV Network Ltd. & Anr., CS (COMM) 581/2023, in which it had previously secured a favorable ruling in a disparagement claim against the producers of the film Jailer. In that case, a character wearing an RCB jersey was shown engaging in offensive conduct. The plaintiff also relied on precedents including Hamdard National Foundation & Anr. v. Hussain Dalal & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2289, and ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Ashok Thakeria, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6538, to support its claims. Additionally, the plaintiff pointed to negative public comments on YouTube as evidence of irreparable harm and argued that the impugned banner violated Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by being deceptively similar to the RCB trademark.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE DEFENDANTS

The defendants submitted that the advertisement aimed to highlight Uber Moto’s efficiency and reliability, as demonstrated by the timely arrival of the ride booked by Defendant No. 3—who refers to himself as a ‘Hyderabaddie’—which enables his escape from security personnel. They argued that the phrase ‘Royally Challenged’ merely suggested intense competition between the teams and had previously been used by news outlets in a similar context.

To support their position, the defendants cited other cricket-themed advertisements, including the well-known ‘Mauka Mauka’ campaign, to illustrate the common use of humor in sports marketing. They contended that the impugned poster appeared only in the background and was not prominently featured. Regarding the reference to SRH, they clarified that SRH was one of several teams with which Uber had commercial arrangements, and the advertisement did not imply disparagement or hidden commercial intent.

The defendants further argued that their right to advertise is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. They relied on Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. v. Puro Wellness Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6338, where the court emphasized that in cases involving temporary injunctions, the right to free speech must be balanced, and advertisements should be assessed in their entirety rather than dissected frame-by-frame to identify disparagement.

They also cited Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 741, in which the Supreme Court held that the three-fold test of prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience should not be applied mechanically in matters involving public speech. Additionally, they referred to Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr., (2011: DHC:515), to argue that nominative use of a trademark does not amount to infringement and falls outside the scope of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Finally, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had selectively presented negative YouTube comments while ignoring positive feedback from RCB fans. They maintained that the advertisement did not affect the general perception of fans and, therefore, did not cause reputational harm. They concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The Court held that even if the impugned mark were identical to the registered trademark, infringement could not be presumed, as the marks pertained to different categories of goods and services. Citing Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 139, and Tata Sons Private Limited, the Court reaffirmed that commercial speech, including advertisements, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It concurred with the defendants’ arguments regarding the advertisement’s manner, message, and intent.

The Court further ruled that the mere reference to an RCB-related phrase on the poster did not amount to disparagement or infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since Defendant No. 3 neither mentioned SRH nor wore its jersey, no association with the team could be inferred.

Finding no reference to the quality of the RCB trademark or the team, the Court concluded that disparagement could not be established based solely on a few negative public comments. It also found no evidence of commercial exploitation or irreparable harm resulting from the advertisement. The defendants’ right to free speech was upheld.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application, holding that no prima facie case of disparagement or infringement under Section 29(4) had been made out. It also found no likelihood of irreparable loss to the plaintiff, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting relief.

COMMENTS

As advertisements are a form of creative expression, evaluating the degrees of disparagement while reasonably restricting such expression presents a difficult challenge. This judgment highlights the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, while also clarifying the legal limits for identifying disparagement in advertising. At a time when wit and satire are increasingly met with resistance, the decision holds particular significance—it affirms humour as a vital element of democratic discourse. Importantly, it also serves as a reminder that while legal safeguards exist against unfair commercial practices, creative and artistic interpretations deserve equal protection.