Delhi High Court Rejects IPL Team RCB's Plea For Interim Relief Against Uber's 'Disparaging' Ad Featuring Travis Head

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed the interim injunction plea filed by IPL team Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in its suit against Uber Moto over allegedly disparaging YouTube advertisement featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad's cricketer Travis Head.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the interim injunction application filed by RCB, observing that the impugned advertisement does not call for any interference at this stage.

“The impugned advertisement is in the context of a game- cricket, a game of sportsmanship which in the opinion of this court does not call for any interference of any sort at this stage,” the Court said.

“More so, since in a case like the present one, interference by this Court, at this stage, would tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed,” the Court added. 

The suit has been filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Uber Moto's YouTube ad titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head”. The 0.59 seconds video has 2 million views at present.

Advocate Shwetasree Majumder appeared for RCB. Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal appeared for Uber Moto.

Justice Banerjee concluded that RCB was not able to make out a prima facie case of any injury as there wS no falsity or misrepresentation or undue and unfair advantage or deprecation or derogation or defamation on part of Uber Moto qua the RCB trademark or RCB Cricket team. 

The Court further held that there was no detriment to the repute of the RCB trademark taking place which would be in-compensable, post the outcome of the matter.

“.…this Court is of the considered opinion that the general perception created by wholistic viewing of the impugned advertisement is one of a healthy banter and good-natured light- hearted humour without any elements of disparagement and/ or infringement under Section 29(4) of the TM Act with regards to the RCB trademark/ RCB Cricket team,” the Court said.

It added there was no (in)direct imputation or exaggeration or sensationalism of any kind by Uber Moto against the RCB trademark/m kr RCB Cricket team. 

“That being so, there is no element of demeaning/ criticism/ condemning/ ridiculing/ denigrating/ defaming/ disgracing/ belittling/ scorning/ mocking/ falsity with a view to injure or harm the RCB trademark/ RCB Cricket team,” the Court said.

Majumder took the court through the description of the advertisement and said that Travis Head, as a character in the video, disparages RCB's trademark.

She said that in the video, Head is seen running towards Bengaluru cricket stadium with an aim to vandalize the signage of “Bengaluru v. Hyderabad”, takes a spray paint and writes “Royally Challenged” Bengaluru in place of “Bengaluru” which disparages RCB's mark.

Majumder had said that the moment a negative comment is made, there is disparagement. She further said that Uber Moto, being the commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad IPL team, while promoting its product (booking of bike), used RCB's trademark in the course of its trade, that too its “deceptive variant”, which was not permissible under law.

She said that the fan comments on the video leave no manner of doubt that Uber Moto was picking up at RCB and that it was a case of use of deceptively similar variant of RCB's trademark.

On the other hand, Rajagopal submitted that there was a fundamental problem with the suit and that RCB has a “severely discounted” sense of humour of the public at large.

He said that the general messaging of the advertisement in question is that on May 13, there is a match between RCB and Sunrisers Hyderabad at the Bengaluru cricket stadium and since it is a traffic jam city, public must use uber moto.

Rajagopal also said that the case was covered by commercial free speech which cannot be injuncted. He called the suit “preposterous” and said that RCB should combat humour with humour and not with a lawsuit.

To this, Majumder responded that there was no problem in engaging in humour but the same cannot be done by Uber Moto in a way that it takes RCB's trademark, which is commercially valuable to the IPL team, and create a deceptive variant of the same and use it in a commercial manner.

Title: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 510

Click here to read order