Finishing the hat trick on the IPL 2025 related IP posts, Aditya Bhargava writes on the recent Delhi High Court judgement in RCB v. Uber over the latter’s advertisement allegedly disparaging the Bangalore based team. For the previous two posts on the other IPL related controversies, covered by Sonisha, see here (on BCCI issuing notice to the “Grade Cricketer” podcast) and here (on Publishers “Champak” magazine suing BCCI for adopting an identical name for their AI Robot dog). Aditya is a third-year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. His previous posts can be accessed here.
Parody, Trademarks, and the IPL: Analysing Delhi HC’s ruling in RCB v. Uber
By Aditya Bhargava
Sporting events are never free of IP tussles, and the Indian Premier League (“IPL”) is no exception. This season has already produced three face-offs in the Delhi High Court (“DHC”): one over the BCCI naming its boundary patrol robot “Champak”, (covered by Sonisha here), second, over the Grade Cricketer’s use of images from matches in their Youtube review videos (covered again by Sonisha here), and the third, that sees Royal Challengers Bengaluru (“RCB”) square off against ride‑hailing giant Uber for trademark disparagement and dilution.
RCB’s latest loss came not on the cricket field, but in court – but it’s a win for sporting humour and free speech. The DHC’s refusal to grant RCB an injunction against a cheeky Uber Moto advertisement is a welcome victory for wit and competitive camaraderie. In times where brands often rush to litigation at the slightest provocation, J. Banerjee’s decision in Royal Challengers v. Uber is a breath of fresh air. It sends a clear message that playful parody, especially in a sports context, should be celebrated, not censored.
Sports thrives on rivalries – both on and off the field. A bit of tongue-in-cheek banter can fire up fans and benefit all parties by drawing more interest. We’ve seen it in the classic Pepsi vs. Coke ad wars, where each brand’s jabs at the other only made the “Cola wars” more legendary. In fact, when Coca-Cola once mockingly dubbed Pepsi a “kids’ drink” in an ad (even dressing a Pepsi-lookalike bottle as “Peppi”), an Indian court stepped in to call that disparagement. But aside from such oversteps, those battles kept both brands in the public eye and proved that a creative rivalry can energize the market. The lesson: a playful contest, handled smartly, can boost everyone’s profile and probably sales too.
I, for one, applaud the DHC’s stance. As a long-time cricket fan, I know that half the fun of sport is the banter that comes with it. RCB might be disappointed, but instead of playing spoil-sport over a joke, they could embrace the moment (or even counter it with some creative advertising of their own!).
Background: The “Royally Challenged” Ad and RCB’s Complaint
The dispute is about Uber’s “Baddies in Bengaluru” campaign, a YouTube ad featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad player Travis Head shows Head sneaking into RCB’s home stadium and spray-painting “Royally Challenged” over a sign that read “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad”. This wordplay on RCB’s name is a cheeky dig suggesting the team is “royally challenged”. Upon being spotted, Head escapes on an Uber Moto bike.
RCB claimed the ad crossed the line from harmless banter to commercial disparagement and trademark misuse. The franchise argued that Uber was unfairly mocking its brand (even twisting RCB’s popular slogan “Ee Sala Cup Namde”/”This year the cup is ours”) to promote Uber’s services. In RCB’s view, the ad’s punchline amounted to defamation of the team and dilution of its trademark. Seeking an interim injunction, they alleged that Uber’s use of a deceptively similar phrase was trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the ad disparaged the RCB brand’s goodwill.
Disparagement in Advertising: Humour vs. Malice
Disparagement in advertising law refers to advertising that discredits or denigrates another’s product or business. In essence, an advertiser can laud their own goods but cannot slander a competitor’s. (Read more posts here) To judge if an ad is disparaging, courts look at factors like the intent behind the ad, the manner of presentation, and the storyline/message – if the commercial merely highlights itself or uses mild humour versus actually ridiculing or condemning the rival’s product. Only an advertisement containing a false or malicious claim that casts the other’s product in a seriously bad light will qualify as actionable disparagement.
Drawing on these principles, the DHC found that Uber’s IPL-themed ad did not disparage RCB. Crucially, the ad made no false statements about RCB or its performance. It pokes fun but does not say RCB is “bad” in any factual sense. Unlike ads where a competitor’s product is explicitly called “useless” or inferior (for example, a rival drink being labeled bekaar – “useless” – in Hamdard National Foundation case) here there was no such direct disparagement. Instead, the court noted, the “Royally Challenged” slogan comes off as “healthy banter and good-natured light-hearted humour”. [Para 65] In other words, the average viewer would perceive it as a sports rivalry joke, not as an actual claim undermining RCB’s quality (anyway they are the table toppers this year!)
Context mattered greatly. The court emphasized that the ad was set “in the context of a game of cricket” and must be viewed in the sporting spirit. Cricket fans are accustomed to jeers and taunts among teams (remember mauka-mauka!); an IPL sponsor indulging in a bit of tongue-in-cheek trolling was deemed par for the course. “The contours of disparagement…relating to a game of cricket cannot be given such a restrictive meaning or viewed by a narrow spectacle,” the judge observed. In sum, the court saw nothing in the ad that crossed into malicious ridicule – it remained on the side of permissible parody. Therefore, RCB had no prima facie case of disparagement.
Trademark Infringement (Dilution) under Section 29(4)
RCB also alleged dilution under Section 29(4). This section applies to well-known marks and prohibits unauthorized use of a mark on dissimilar goods or services if the use without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the mark’s distinctive character or repute. In theory, RCB’s mark “Royal Challengers Bangalore” has a reputation, and using a confusingly similar phrase like “Royally Challenged” in a commercial could be construed as taking advantage of that fame or tarnishing it.
The DHC, however, noted that the threshold for invoking Section 29(4) is high. Even assuming “Royally Challenged” is similar to the RCB trademark and was used in the course of trade, RCB needed to show that this use was without due cause and that it either took unfair advantage of the RCB mark or caused detriment to its distinctive character or reputation. J. Banerjee found no such showing. There was no indication that Uber’s quirky ad had caused any real injury to the value or distinctiveness of the “Royal Challengers” name. In fact, the court recorded that there was “no falsity/ misrepresentation/ undue and unfair advantage…or defamation” by Uber, nor any “detriment to the repute” of RCB’s mark evident in the ad’s effect. The joke did not dilute the mark’s identity – if anything, it presupposed RCB’s strong reputation (since the humour only works if viewers recognize the reference).
Moreover, the court implied that the use had a reasonable justification (a playful reference in a cricket rivalry context), so it was not “without due cause.” With no unfair gain by Uber and no proven tarnishment of RCB’s brand, the judge held that Section 29(4) infringement was not established. RCB’s dilution claim, like its disparagement claim, failed.
Commercial Free Speech and the Parody Defense
There are also aspects of free speech in this order. Advertisements are a form of commercial speech protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (as recognized by the Supreme Court in Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL), though subject to reasonable restrictions such as laws against defamation or misleading ads. Here, Uber framed its ad as a tongue-in-cheek expression and argued that restraining it would unduly stifle creative speech. The DHC was mindful of this balance between trademark rights and expression. It noted that trademark law should not be stretched to muzzle legitimate commentary or harmless parody.
In line with this thinking, Justice Banerjee referenced the South African case Laugh It Off Promotions v. SAB (must read for anyone interested at the intersection of Trademark law and free-speech), where a satirical dig on a famous beer trademark was shielded as free expression. He also acknowledged that Indian courts have, in other contexts, tolerated parody and satire involving trademarks, for example, when Greenpeace spoofed Tata’s logo in a campaign, the free speech element was given weight. The court signaled that a comic or parodic use of a mark, especially one that doesn’t mislead consumers or trade on the mark for a competing product, can be a valid exercise of expression.
The judge further cautioned against overzealous injunctions that can chill speech. Citing a recent Supreme Court remark (in a media defamation context) that prolonged litigation can serve as a “death sentence” [Para 68] to speech before a final verdict, the court kept the balance of convenience firmly against restraining the ad. In practical terms, stopping the ad would have meant snuffing out a form of commercial humour in its infancy. Instead, the court suggested that RCB could respond in the same coin – “combat humour with humour” rather than with lawsuits. By refusing the injunction, the DHC essentially upheld Uber’s right to engage in some playful commercial speech, reinforcing that the constitutional protection of expression extends even to irreverent ads.
Between Trademark Rights and Parody: Finding the Balance
In the creative and cut-throat world of marketing, a legal green light on playful rivalry could inspire more engaging campaigns – to the delight of fans and consumers. This case has tried to find the fine line between protecting trademarks and permitting parody in advertising. It holds that trademark law is intended to guard against genuine harm such as consumer confusion, reputational damage, or blatant free‑riding . It is not to shield a brand from every offhand jibe. In this case, the scales tipped in favor of humour and competitive banter. The court preserved the integrity of RCB’s marks (by affirming that any serious disparagement or misuse would be enjoined), yet it refused to extend legal protection to matters of pride or “hurt feelings” in a sporting rivalry.
One might question, however, whether the court downplayed the potential cumulative effect of such mockery on a brand. The line between “healthy banter” and real harm can be fine. RCB has never won an IPL title, and “Royally Challenged” was premised on that notorious reputation. Could repeated jokes of this kind eventually tarnish the brand’s image? Moreover, if an ad campaign by a competitor (or its proxy, given here Uber is an official sponsor of SRH, a rival team) systematically uses a rival’s mark to imply weakness, at what point would courts intervene?
Context is crucial , a joke in the arena of sports or social commentary may be accepted, whereas the same punchline in a comparative commercial for a competing product might not. The judgment explicitly notes that in a game of cricket, fans have varying “tolerance” [para 61] and appetite for taunts, implying that what is acceptable in this arena might not be so in others. This context‑specific approach is sensible, but it introduces some subjectivity. Would the decision differ if a similar “parody ad” occurred in a more solemn industry (say, a bank ad teasing a rival bank’s name)? Possibly, yes. Courts might be less indulgent if a trademark joke could actually erode consumer trust in a product’s quality or safety.
Lastly, whether Indian law should explicitly recognize a parody defence to trademark claims, so as to provide clearer guidance, remains up for debate.