Cricket is not just meant to be a sport in India; it has become an integral part of Indian culture. People like to tease each other and crack jokes about their favourite teams, whether they are individuals or companies. This kind of joke and fun banter is usually appreciated and enjoyed until it goes too far. But what is the limit of a fun banter or a mild humour to differentiate it from disparagement?
That's exactly what happened in the case of Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Uber India. In this case, the IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore accused Uber India of disparagement, they felt as if the fun banter had gone too far.
Brief facts of the case -
Uber India released a 59-second YouTube ad ahead of the SRH (Sunrisers Hyderabad) and RCB (Royal Challengers Bangalore) match in IPL 2025. The ad featured Travis Head, who is an Australian cricketer who plays for SRH in IPL, and they characterised Travis Head as a playful "bad guy" called "Hyderabaddie". In the ad, the signboard on the stadium was humorously changed to "Royally Challenged Bangalore" from "Bangalore vs. Hyderabad". They also pointed out that Uber India has also used their famous slogan "Ee Sala Cup Namde," which means "This year the cup is ours." This slogan is closely associated with RCB by its fans. So, RCB went to court to seek an interim injunction against Uber to remove the ad from all the online platforms, as, according to them, this ad disparaged their trademark and damaged their reputation.
Arguments by RCB or the claimant -
RCB contended that the ad contained disparaging statements which were intended to hurt the commercial value of RCB, and the slogan "Royally challenged Bengaluru" has negatively portrayed RCB as incompetent and inefficient. RCB further stated that the use of the famous Kannada slogan, "Ee Saala Cup Namde," which is commonly associated with the RCB, is with the intent to misuse the emotional connection between the fans and the team, which took years to develop, and eventually degrade the brand value of RCB. RCB cited similar legal precedents to support their case, like one of their previous litigations against SUN TV Network, where a movie character was wearing an RCB jersey and performing an objectionable act, which was eventually won by RCB.
Arguments by Uber India or the respondent -
Uber India gave a strong counter to all the claims by labelling the suit as an overreaction fuelled by a "severely discounted" sense of humour. According to Uber India, the advertisement was a representation of merely good, humorous banter, a common and culturally accepted aspect of sports fandom, especially cricket. They denied the claim of any kind of false claim and unfair competitive advantages taken of the emotional bond of RCB and its fans. Rather, the main intent was to promote Uber Moto as a practical source of convenience in Bengaluru amid heavy traffic congestion. Uber further relied on the Constitution of India for their constitutional right of free commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) and supported it with key judgments like Tata Sons v. Puro Wellness, Colgate v. HUL, etc. stating that mere humorous or exaggerated representations without specific factual assertions should not constitute infringement or disparagement.
Judgment in brief -
When Justice Saurabh Banarjee heard this case in the Delhi High Court, he dismissed the RCB's interim Injunction plea. He gave a judgment which focused on both the trademark law intersecting cultural norms of sports and humour. The court broadly focused on two legal issues-
- For an advertisement to be disparaging, it must explicitly degrade or falsely represent the product or the reputation of the plaintiff, withholding clear falsehood and intent to cause injury. After viewing Uber's advertisement, the court concluded that the ad doesn't incorporate any kind of falsehood or has any intent to cause injury as per established precedents such as Gillette India v. Reckitt Benckiser. An average viewer will see the advertisement as a harmless sports banter, which is a bit common in cricket fandom, and not as a company targeting another.
- Another issue that was faced by the court was whether Uber's advertisement had infringed the RCB's trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. For which the court stated that the only use of similar or identical trademarks is not enough for trademark infringement, for an infringement, the use should be in such a way that harms the reputation of the brand or takes unfair commercial advantage of the brand's goodwill. In this case, there was no evidence that Uber tried using the RCB's name and logo to profit unfairly, and the advertisement didn't damage RCB's brand value or reputation, or image. The use was not even misleading as it didn't do any kind of commercial exploitation by trying to sell something by falsely linking it to RCB. As there were no conditions met, the court concluded that there was no trademark infringement.
In the later parts of the judgment, the court focused on preserving commercial free speech. Justice Banerjee pointed out that the creative advertisements, like jokes, satire, or playful references, must be protected under the right to commercial free speech. The court took the reference from some previous cases like Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment and Tata Press Ltd v. MTNL, which emphasized the fact that the court must not ban or stop an advertisement unless there is a serious legal issue associated with it. The court also looked into the legal principle of "balance of convenience," which means which side will suffer more harm depending on the outcome, and it found that the plaintiff did not show any kind of lasting damage or show any evidence of loss or serious harm to its image or business but ironically RCB's fans even reacted positively to the ad. and because of this court decided that stopping the ad would be unfair to Uber as they did nothing wrong legally. Therefore, the balance of convenience was in Uber.
Commentary -
Justice Banerjee's verdict is more focused on maintaining the balance between protecting trademarks and allowing space for free expression in the advertising industry. The judgment took care of the unique culture of cricket in India, where passion for sports like cricket is accompanied by fun banters and spirited rivalries. The court didn't focus on taking immediate, strict action against the accused, and decided to consider a broader social context and tone of the advertisement, which focused more on the humour than the harm. This approach of Justice Banerjee not only preserves the value of the trademark rights but also ensures that the creativity and satire in marketing don't go misjudged. This judgment has also raised a green flag for the brands to engage in public conversations and use humour and cultural references responsibly instead of turning them into a lawsuit. There must be a sense of responsibility while using references like culture or emotion so that it shouldn't hurt anyone, instead encouraging a feeling of spirit in everyone's heart. The judgment also sends a gentle reminder: before releasing any such content, companies should consult their experienced intellectual property professionals to avoid any unintentional crossing of legal lines or infringing on others' rights. Taking these precautions can help maintain both compliance and creative freedom.
References -
- https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bc3dbfe2-6d6a-4a5d-836f-1ca3142eca49#:~:text=Key%20Facts%20of%20the%20Case,%22Ee%20Sala%20Cup%20Namde%E2%80%9D
- https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2025/05/royally-challenged-or-legally-sound-examining-trademark-law-through-rcb-v-uber-india/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7234557/
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.
