When Banter Met Trademark: RCB v. Uber India

Introduction 

Sport rivalries thrive on humor, satire and banter, but what happens when that very satire is coupled with an advertisement by a global corporation, and wherein commercial gain is involved? And at what point therefore, does humor cross into trademark disparagement. This very question came before the Delhi High Court in May 2025, when the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) sought an injunction against an advertisement by Uber India, which as alleged, played on their name. Justice Saurabh Banerjee eventually denied the relief, drawing an important line between what is acceptable humor in sports context, and what calls for an actionable trademark disparagement. The case operates at the intersection of trademark law, commercial free speech and cultural context of IPL advertisements.

Background

In April 2025, during the IPL match scheduled between Bengaluru and Hyderabad, Uber released an advertisement titled “Baddies in Bengaluru”, which featured the prominent Australian cricketer Travis Head, and others referring to themselves as “Hyderabaddies”, who thereby are sneaking into a stadium, spray painting the phrase “Royally Challenged” over a match banner. The advertisement ended by promoting Uber Moto as the “Official Ride Partner of the Hyderabaddies”. RCB therefore objected to the abovementioned on three grounds: first being the phrase “Royally Challenged” intentioned to not only distort trademark, but also suggesting incompetence; second, the use of its popular fan chant slogan ‘Es Sala Cup Namde” was used without permission; and third, being the indirect promotion of Hyderabad Team, given Uber’s relationship with the team, which as per RCB amounts to trademark disparagement, as argued by them before the court.

The Legal Framework

Section 24(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with the trademark infringement even when the goods or services in question are dissimilar. It is applicable, when: the mark used is similar to a well-known registered mark; the use is when without due cause; and it when unfairly benefits from or harms the mark’s reputation. Unlike usual infringement disputes, misperception among user need to be established here, however the burden to establish harm remains equally high. 

To ascertain what counts as disparagement, Indian courts take an all-inclusive approach. An advertisement is considered disparaging only if, when viewed as a whole, it criticizes the brand, makes misleading claims, or intends to harm reputation. The courts henceforth do not examine the advertisement frame by frame, instead the overall impression is taken into consideration.

The Decision of the Court

The court held that the phrase “Royally Challenged” was merely a pun, being a part of usual sports banter, and not a factual claim pertaining to RCB’s cricket team, or their performance. There was, hence, no false statement made, no serious allegation made, and no tangible attempt to tarnish RCB’s image or reputation. The court also pointed out that fans themselves viewed the ad as playful, which is of importance when analyzing the reasonable viewer, and not a minute number of offended viewers. Importantly, the court recognized that sports advertisement works in a different landscape altogether, wherein a higher degree of mockery is tolerated and accepted.

RCB thereby failed to establish that Uber gained unfair advantage from their trademark, and that there was any reputational harm caused. The court observed that Uber was promoting their own service, which is Uber Moto, and not any cricket team, as ride hailing services are completely unrelated to cricket, as the use of RCB related elements was minimal. Even the slogan did appear only briefly and wasn’t enough in itself to amount to misuse. And the argument of Uber promoting the Hyderabad team was dismissed as being merely speculative in nature, without ground. 

The court also replied upon a recent Supreme Court judgment on commercial free speech, as it emphasized that courts shall remain hesitant when granting injunctions which restrict the expression of another. Herein, the ad had already been extensively circulated, RCB could not establish harm of irreparable nature, and blockage of the ad would just restrict legitimate expression. Hence the balance favored Uber.

Takeaways

The judgment attempts to reinforce some important principles, such as that not all humor is disparagement, and that wordplay alone is not enough to establish harm. What matters primarily is context, as sport advertising allows for more leeway as compared to other industries. The courts hence look at the whole, and not in isolation. And lastly the importance of free speech especially in creative contexts. Despite the strengths, the judgment does leave the door open for a few questions such as that of sponsor bias, sustained campaigning, and the cumulative impact.

Conclusion

The case is not a dramatic shift in trademark law, but offers valuable clarification, as it shows that courts are willing to safeguard humor, parody and means of creative expression, more so in the subject matter of sports wherein banter plays an important cultural role. RCB may have therefore lost the match in court, but this is not to be confused as a setback for all brands itself. Instead, if anything, it encourages a more thoughtful approach, which is of stronger evidence, better informed strategy and a finer understanding of where the law draws the line. To conclude, the message is easy, that not every joke is an injury in the eyes of law, and therefore not every brand may receive an injunction order for the same.

Author: Yatharth Chakravarty, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 345/2025, Delhi High Court, decided 5 May 2025. 

Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 29(4)