In a recent decision at the intersection of trademark law, sports marketing, and creative advertising, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined whether a satirical advertisement referencing the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Royal Challengers Bengaluru, (RCB) crossed the legal threshold into trademark infringement and brand disparagement. Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (the Plaintiff), which owns the RCB franchise, approached the Court alleging that the impugned advertisement aired by Uber India and others, misused its trademarks and tarnished the team's commercial image.
Background
On April 5, 2025, Uber India (Defendant No.1), its parent company Uber Technologies Inc. (Defendant No. 2), and an Australian cricketer (Defendant No.3) playing for another IPL team Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH), released an advertisement across various social media platforms. The ad featured the cricketer spray-painting "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" on a stadium wall, a twist on RCB's official name. It also displayed the popular RCB fan slogan "Ee Sala Cup Namde", associated closely with RCB supporters. The closing frame showed Uber as the "Official Ride Partner of the Hyderabaddies," a play on SRH.
The Plaintiff asserted, that the said advertisement tarnished RCB's brand image during the IPL season, exploited the Plaintiff's registered trademarks without consent, and associated Uber with a competing IPL team to RCB's commercial detriment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, restraining further broadcast of the advertisement.
Submissions of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff argued that the use of the phrase - "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" in the advertisement constitutes infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, as it deceptively mimics the well-known "Royal Challengers Bengaluru" mark and dilutes its distinctiveness. It was further pointed out, that the timing of the advertisement coincided with the IPL season, and was a derogatory and mocking attempt to commercially exploit RCB's brand.
Looking at the intent, the manner of representation and the message sought to be conveyed, led the Plaintiff to conclude that the advertisement was an attempt to encash upon the goodwill of the RCB trademark/ RCB Cricket team, by showing them in a derogatory light, and undermine the public's emotional connection with them, which in turn would amount to disparagement and defamation. The Plaintiff went on to rely on previous decisions in the cases of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Sun Pictures A Division of Sun TV Network Ltd. & Anr1, Hamdard National Foundation & Anr. v. Hussain Dalal and Ors.2, and ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Ashok Thakeria3, wherein injunctions had been granted in order to prevent disparagement of trademarks.
Submissions of the Defendants
Defendant No.1 and 2 countered the arguments advanced by the Plaintiff by stating that the advertisement employs only a humorous pun using the names of the cities Hyderabad and Bengaluru. Further, even if the same is construed to be a reference to RCB, the same was used in the spirit of a comical tease, which is widely accepted by sporting fans and is a part of cricket. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also took the defence, that the intent and the message behind the advertisement was to indicate that the ride-hailing services offered by Defendant No.1 are extremely reliable and efficient, which is shown in the advertisement. As regards the manner of the advertisement, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that the advertisement was merely a wordplay conveying that Bangalore was going to be 'royally challenged' in their scheduled match with Hyderabad. In order to show that such witty banter was part and parcel to the game of cricket, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 referred to previous famous advertisements concerning cricket.
Placing reliance on the previous decision in the cases of Tata Sons Private Limited and Ors. vs. Puro Wellness Private Limited and Ors4. and Colgate vs. HUL5, the Defendants argued that the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India must be carefully balanced in cases involving temporary injunctions, and further that there is no absolute rule requiring the court to adopt the most negative interpretation of an advertisement accused of disparagement, when multiple meanings are possible. Instead, the advertisement should be assessed as a whole, to understand its overall impression, rather than analyzed frame-by-frame solely to find disparagement.
Court's Analysis
The court drew upon the three-pronged test for evaluating disparagement in advertisements, focusing on the intent, manner, and message of the content, laid down in the case of Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd.6 to assess the Plaintiff's claims. The court found that the advertisement lacked malicious or derogatory intent, and was presented as light-hearted sports banter, typical of events like the IPL. The wordplay "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" was interpreted as a satirical twist on the RCB's name, lacking in any explicit or implied defamatory or degrading content. Similarly, the presence of the RCB-associated slogan "Ee Sala Cup Namde" in the background was incidental and not used in a context that could suggest ridicule. The advertisement did not refer to any players, statistics, or performance records, and made no comparisons or claims that would discredit the RCB brand.
Further, the decision in Gillette India Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser7 was cited in conjunction with the decision in the case of S.C. Johnson & Son v. Buchanan Group Pty Ltd.8 by the court, to emphasize the high threshold required to prove disparagement. It was noted, that mere satire or criticism does not suffice unless it harms the brand's reputation, and disparagement must be determined from the standpoint of an average consumer, who, in this context, is accustomed to a degree of light-hearted rivalry and banter between teams and would not interpret the ad as offensive or demeaning.
As regards to the contentions of trademark infringement, the court placed reliance on the decision in ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA9, which clarified that Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 demands a higher threshold than traditional infringement claims. The section not only requires use of a similar mark in relation to dissimilar goods, but also proof of unfair advantage or detriment to the brand's reputation. As Uber operates in a different sector from RCB, and the ad did not exploit RCB's reputation for commercial gain, the court found that no unfair advantage had been taken. There was no evidence of damage to the reputation or dilution of the RCB mark. Rather, the court recognized that parody, satire, and wordplay in advertising, especially in sporting contexts, do not in themselves amount to infringement.
Further, the court acknowledged the defendants' right to commercial free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Citing Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL10 and Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment11, the court stressed that advertisements are a form of protected expression, and any restraint imposed must fall within the limited grounds permitted under Article 19(2). Since the Uber advertisement neither defamed nor misled, it could not be lawfully restrained. The court also referenced Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Puro Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (supra), affirming that exaggeration and creative storytelling are permissible unless they make serious factual misrepresentations. Accordingly, it was held that the advertisement, featuring a fictional character in a dramatized scenario, was a fair and constitutionally protected form of expression. The court emphasized that litigation should not be used to suppress humour or creativity in commercial contexts, especially where no prima facie harm is evident.
Our Analysis
The Delhi High Court's judgment in the present case seems to balance a fine line between trademark protection and free speech. In our opinion, while the court prioritized creative freedom in sports advertising by denying the temporary injunction, at the same time, the decision sets a seemingly high threshold for trademark holders to protect their brand against indirect attacks. The phrase "Royally Challenged Bengaluru," though humorous, undoubtedly carried negative connotations. Moreover, the ad's use of RCB fans' slogan "Ee Sala Cup Namde" without consent, combined with Defendant No.1's association with a rival team, arguably bordered on brand dilution of RCB.
While the intent behind the said judgement is to favour creative expression and viewer discernment, the same risks enabling advertisers to appropriate rival brands under the guise of humour and witty banter. This precedent may concern high-investment sports properties like IPL teams, and we opine that a more balanced approach, such as allowing the ad with disclaimers or limiting its promotion, could have better protected both free expression and trademark protection.
From a commercial law perspective, this decision sends a clear message to rights holders, especially in IP-heavy sectors like sports franchises, OTT platforms, and consumer brands, that protecting trademarks under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is not as simple as pointing to reputational discomfort. The bar is now set higher and the aggrieved parties must show real harm, like brand dilution or consumer confusion, especially when the alleged infringement involves unrelated goods or services. For companies and advertisers, the ruling offers some breathing room, in holding that clever or humorous content that is not misleading or malicious may fall under legitimate commercial speech. That said, it is still critical to vet such campaigns through internal legal review, particularly in industries where branding is closely regulated or reputation-sensitive, like sports, alcohol, pharma, and financial services. Satire might be permissible but when it veers into exploiting someone else's brand value without consent or disclaimers, it can quickly turn into a legal or reputational liability.
Footnotes
1. CS (COMM) 581/2023
2. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2289
3. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6538
4. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6338
5. 206 (2014) DLT 329 (DB)
6. 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del)
7. 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126
8. 2010 (42) PTC 77 (Del)
9. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 27
10. (1995) 5 SCC 139
11. (2025) 1 SCC 741
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.
