Introduction
The intersection of sports, advertising, and intellectual property law has once again come into sharp focus with the recent Delhi High Court Judgement in the case ofRoyal Challengers Sports Private Limited (herein referred to as Plaintiff)vsUber India System Private Limited(herein referred to as Defendant). The plaintiff filed, filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction against Uber Moto's viral advertisement featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad's Travis Head, alleging trademark disparagement and unauthorized use of its brand and to take down the advertisement from the social media platforms. The court's dismissal of RCB's plea has sparked debate about the boundaries of humour, fair competition, and trademark rights in the context of sports marketing.
The Indian Premier League (IPL) is not just a cricket tournament, it's a festival of fierce rivalries, passionate fan bases, and high-stakes marketing battles in which the boundaries between playful banter, creative expression, and legal rights are constantly tested.
Background: The Controversial Advertisement
Uber Moto, as part of its "Hyderabaddie" campaign, released a 52-second video ad titled "Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head" as part of its promotional campaign for the IPL season. The ad featured Australian cricketer Travis Head, who was playing for Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) in IPL 2025, uploaded on YouTube and Instagram in early April 2025, quickly garnered millions of views, drawing both laughter and ire from fans.
In the video, Travis Head is smuggled into a stadium, spray paints "Royally Challenged" over the word "Bengaluru" on a "Bengaluru vs Hyderabad" banner, and escapes using Uber's bike taxi service. The ad's humor was rooted in the rivalry between the two teams and Bengaluru's traffic, which Uber Moto's bike taxi service promised to solve. The campaign used Travis Head, a prominent SRH player (and former RCB member), to amplify its appeal.
Contentions by the Plaintiff
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff made the following submissions before the Hon'ble court:
- The advertisement used a "deceptive variant" of the RCB trademark, i.e., "Royally Challenged Bengaluru", in a manner that was derogatory and amounted to disparagement as the advertisement created an impression among viewers that the RCB Cricket team is destined to be defeated by portraying them as underperformers or unreliable.
- The advertisement depicted a poster bearing the phrase "Ee Sala Cup Namde" which is a common phrase in Kannada language translating to"This Year the Cup Is Ours"and has been wrongly depicted in the impugned advertisement which is also an act of infringement, particularly, since the slogan therein is popularly associated with the RCB Cricket team by its fans/ followers across India who use it to create songs and victory chants for the RCB Cricket team.
- The impugned advertisement ridicules the plaintiff, which exceeds the permissible boundaries of comparative advertising and does not qualify as 'fair use' by the defendants.
- The advertisement seeks to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the RCB trademark and the RCB Cricket team by portraying them in a negative manner, thereby diminishing the public's emotional attachment to the team. Such actions constitute both disparagement and defamation.
Contentions by the Defendant
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant made the following submissions before the Hon'ble court:
- That the advertisement was intended as light-hearted humor and playful banter, rather than an attempt to disparage RCB. It employed a playful tone and was crafted as a piece of creative banter rather than a targeted critique or derogatory statement
- Themannerof the impugned advertisement is merely a wordplay conveying that Bengaluru is going to be"ROYALLY CHALLENGED"in their upcoming Cricket match with Hyderabad, i.e., that the Bengaluru team is likely to face a significant challenge or stiff competition in their upcoming cricket match against Hyderabad mere indication of one team being challenged by the other does not amount to any negative connotation
- The underlying message conveyed through the advertisement is to highlight the efficiency and reliability of the motorbike services provided by the Defendant which, notably, is not a competitor of the plaintiff. This is effectively illustrated in the sequence where the motorbike ride booked arrives promptly within the stipulated time of three-minute which plays a crucial role in enabling them to swiftly evade the stadium's security team.
- That the term "Hyderabaddies," as used in the advertisement, refers exclusively to the Hyderabad player and is not intended as a comparative or derogatory reference to the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) trademark or its cricket team and the use of the word "bad" or its variants is contextually linked to the characters portrayed in the advertisement and not directed at or associated with RCB in any manner.
- That the plaintiff's assertions are inherently contradictory. The plaintiff simultaneously accused the defendant of unlawfully exploiting its 'goodwill' while also alleging that the defendants are causing harm to their 'reputation.' Both by benefiting from the positive public perception of the plaintiff's brand and, at the same time, tarnishing that very perception.
Key Issues and Arguments
The primary legal issues in the case revolved around:
- Whether there is any disparagement per se?and
- Whether the provisions of Section 29(4) of the TM Act are attracted?
Observation by Court
The Delhi High Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and analysed the evidence on record. The Hon'ble Single Judge vide his judgment dated May 05, 2025 dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an interim injunction on the following grounds.
The court held that Uber Moto's advertisement did not violate RCB's trademark rights. The phrase"Royally Challenged Bengaluru"was deemed a humorous play on words rather than an attempt to mislead consumers or commercially exploit RCB's brand. The court viewed the ad as light-hearted banter and healthy humour, typical in the context of sporting rivalries, and found no elements of malice or unfair advantage taken
The court found that thecontent of the ad was in the nature of humorous and friendly banter—a common practice in the sporting world, especially during cricket leagues like the IPL. There was no malicious intent, and it did not cross the legal threshold for defamation or disparagement. The court stressed thata thin line exists between satire and defamation, but Uber's content stayed within legal bounds.
A Progressive and Balanced Ruling
The court's decision to dismiss RCB's plea is, in my view, a progressive and pragmatic one. It recognizes the unique context of sports advertising, where humour, banter, and rivalry are not just accepted but celebrated. By refusing to grant an interim injunction, the court has sent a clear message that not every playful jab or creative twist in advertising is grounds for legal action. Cricket, and the IPL in particular, thrives on rivalry, friendly banter, and the emotional engagement of fans. The court's ruling acknowledges that audiences are sophisticated enough to distinguish between genuine disparagement and playful competition. Overprotection of trademarks in such scenarios could dampen the spirit of the game and the creativity of marketers.
A Cautionary Note for Advertisers
While this ruling supports creative freedom, it also serves as a reminder that there are limits. Advertisers must be careful not to cross into territory where humour becomes hurtful, misleading, or defamatory. The line between banter and disparagement can be thin, and each case will depend on its specific facts and context.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's dismissal of RCB's plea against Uber Moto's Travis Head ad marks a significant moment in the evolving relationship between sports, advertising, and trademark law in India. It also underscores the importance of balancing trademark protection with commercial free speech. The decision affirms that playful banter and humour, especially in the context of sporting rivalries, do not automatically amount to legal disparagement or trademark infringement.
As the IPL continues to grow as a commercial and cultural phenomenon, such legal tussles are likely to become more common. This ruling provides valuable guidance for brands, advertisers, and sports franchises navigating the thin line between creative marketing and brand disparagement.
While the court ruled against RCB in the legal arena, the cricket field told a different story. In a dramatic turnaround, Royal Challengers Bengaluru went on to secured the IPL 2025 trophy, silencing critics and proving that champions are ultimately crowned on the pitch—not in advertisements. In a season marked by fierce competition and fiery banter, it was Royal Challengers Bengaluru who had the last laugh—lifting the IPL 2025 trophy and turning "Royally Challenged" into "Royally Triumphant." The win not only reignited the passion of their loyal fanbase but also served as a powerful reminder: in the game of cricket, it's the scoreboard, not the slogans, that settles the score.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
