In the vibrant world of cricket, a sport intricately linked to the country’s cultural tapestry, fan banter — whether between individuals or Corporates — is not merely accepted; it is cherished. Yet, there lies a fine line between good-natured ribbing and the realms of trademark infringement or disparagement. When does humorous exchange tip over into the perilous territory of legal breach? This very question was at the heart of a recent Delhi High Court case, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited & Ors., which saw the popular IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) clashing off-field with ride-hailing giant Uber India.[1]
This article outlines the key arguments advanced by both the sides, the Delhi High Court’s reasoning in denying interim relief, and the broader implications of the judgment, while dissecting it and placing the ruling within the landscape of Indian trademark jurisprudence by drawing comparisons with prior landmark cases on disparagement and parody in advertising.
Facts of the Case
The controversy arose out of a 59-second YouTube advertisement titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head,” released by Uber India, ahead of the IPL 2025 match between Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) and RCB. The advertisement featured Australian cricketer, Travis Head, an SRH player, depicted as an anti-hero character, dubbed a “Hyderabaddie”, who humorously vandalises a stadium sign originally reading “Bengaluru v. Hyderabad”, changing it to “Royally Challenged Bengaluru”. RCB, asserting rights over its registered trademark “Royal Challengers Bengaluru” and related slogans, argued that this advertisement disparaged their registered mark and damaged their reputation, compelling them to seek an interim injunction against Uber to immediately remove the advertisement from online platforms.
Arguments Advanced
Arguments by RCB
RCB contended that the advertisement contained disparaging statements deliberately intended to harm its commercially valuable brand. It was argued that the slogan “Royally Challenged Bengaluru”, portrayed RCB negatively, implying incompetence or incapacity to compete effectively. They further highlighted the advertisement’s inclusion of the popular Kannada slogan, “Ee Sala Cup Namde” (This year the cup is ours), which is commonly associated with RCB. According to RCB, Uber was misusing the emotional connect between the fans and the team that had developed over the years, creating confusion and unfairly benefiting from RCB’s brand value (potentially) getting diluted. Additionally, RCB cited similar precedents such as their prior litigation against Sun TV Network over a movie character wearing a RCB jersey performing objectionable acts, which had been swiftly resolved in their favour.
Arguments by Uber India
Uber India strongly rebutted these claims, labelling the suit as an overreaction fuelled by a “severely discounted” sense of humour. It was asserted that the advertisement represented merely good-natured, humorous banter, a common and culturally accepted aspect of sports fandom, especially cricket. They emphasised that no false claims or unfair competitive advantages were made. Rather, the core messaging was simply to promote Uber Moto as a practical commuting solution in Bengaluru, notorious for traffic congestion.
Uber further placed reliance on their constitutional right to commercial free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, referencing key judgments such as Tata Sons v. Puro Wellness[2], Colgate vs. HUL[3], etc., underscoring that mere humorous or exaggerated representations without specific factual assertions should not constitute infringement or disparagement.
Court’s Holding
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed RCB’s interim injunction plea, offering a nuanced judgment, intersecting trademark law with cultural norms of humour and sport. The Court structured its holding around two legal issues:
Whether the advertisement amounted to disparagement
Justice Banerjee articulated clearly that, for an advertisement to constitute disparagement, it must explicitly degrade, belittle, or falsely represent a claimant’s product or reputation, incorporating clear falsehood or injurious intent. Upon viewing the Uber advertisement in its entirety, the Court concluded that it did not meet these conditions as per established precedents such as Gillette India v. Reckitt Benckiser[4]. Rather, the advertisement was seen in a humorous light, and likely perceived by an average viewer as harmless, sports-related banter, a common and accepted phenomenon within cricket fandom.
Whether the advertisement infringed the RCB trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
On the issue of trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, the Court clarified that mere use of a similar or identical trademark, without demonstrable commercial exploitation causing detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the original trademark, fails to fulfil the stringent criteria of infringement under the Act. Applying this standard, the Court held that Uber had neither undermined nor illegitimately benefited from RCB’s trademark or its associated goodwill. The advertisement, according to Justice Banerjee, lacked elements constituting commercial exploitation, damaging the distinctive character or reputation of RCB’s mark. Consequently, the claim of trademark infringement was also dismissed.
Balance of Convenience and Free Speech
The judgment strongly underlined the importance of preserving commercial free speech. Drawing parallels to the precedents in Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment[5] and the Supreme Court’s landmark Tata Press Ltd v. MTNL judgments,[6] Justice Banerjee stressed that injunctions against creative advertising should not be conservatively granted, particularly when the expression falls clearly within the permissible boundaries of fair commentary or humour. The Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm or loss arising from the advertisement. Noting that public response to the advertisement even included positive reactions from RCB fans, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Defendants.
Parody and Disparagement: A Jurisprudential Perspective
Indian jurisprudence is no stranger to trademark disparagement issues and questions on parody in advertising. For instance, in Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal, the Delhi High Court granted an injunction against a scene in a film explicitly making a negative remark on a product, as the harm was immediate, evident, and caused confusion and deception.[7] Similarly, in ICICI Bank v. Ashok Thakeria, the Court intervened when a film depicted a deceptively similar bank undergoing a security breach, clearly affecting public confidence in ICICI Bank.[8]
The distinguishing factor in these two cases was the presence of explicit negative assertions, causing clear, immediate harm and public confusion, elements that are notably absent in the present dispute. In contrast, the case at hand aligned more closely with cases like Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International, where the Delhi High Court had permitted humorously altered versions of well-known trademarks, emphasising the importance of protecting artistic and commercial expression within reasonable bounds.[9]
Conclusion
Justice Banerjee’s judgment carefully addresses the complex balance between trademark protection and commercial free speech. It highlights cricket’s distinctive role in Indian society, a sport enriched by lively exchanges and good-natured rivalry. By prioritising humour and cultural context over rigid legal interpretations, the ruling upholds trademark rights while allowing for creative expression without undue restriction. From a broader lens, the judgment encourages brands to participate constructively in public discourse, suggesting that playful engagement rather than immediate recourse to litigation can often better serve commercial and cultural interests. Having said the aforesaid, it is recommended that brand owners go through the process of having their advertisements reviewed by competent IP attorneys to ensure that the advertisements do not infringe on the rights of any unrelated third parties or violate any laws in general.
*The Authors were assisted by Akarshi Narain (Intern).
[1] CS(COMM) 345/2025.
[2] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6338
[3] (2025) 1 SCC 741
[4] 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126.
[5] 2025 1 SCC 741.
[6] 1995 5 SCC 139.
[7] 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2289.
[8] 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6538.
[9] 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466.