Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has dismissed the plea seeking temporary injunction against Uber India Systems Private Limited and others from broadcasting an allegedly infringing and disparaging advertisement. The Court held that no prima facie case of disparagement or infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was made out by the plaintiff. The Court directed that the impugned advertisement, being in the context of sports and viewed holistically, does not call for judicial interference at this stage.

The plaintiff, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited, owner of the IPL team "Royal Challengers Bengaluru" and registered proprietor of the "RCB" trademark, filed a suit against Uber India Systems Private Limited (Defendant No. 1), Uber Technologies Inc. (Defendant No. 2) and an Australian cricketer (Defendant No. 3) playing for Sunrisers Hyderabad. The grievance arose from an advertisement posted on social media by Uber India and Uber Technologies in collaboration with Defendant No. 3.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Second Foreigners Tribunal Case | Abuse Of Process Against Person Already Declared Indian

The advertisement depicted Defendant No. 3 referring to himself humorously as a “Hyderabaddie” and spray painting “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” on a banner, which the plaintiff claimed was deceptively similar to its trademark. Additionally, a poster with the phrase "Ee Sala Cup Namde", commonly associated with the RCB team, appeared in the background.

Plaintiff contended that the combination of these elements amounted to infringement, dilution, and disparagement of its trademark, particularly because Defendant No. 3 was affiliated with Sunrisers Hyderabad, a rival team. They argued that the advertisement cast the RCB team in a negative light, was not fair use, and aimed to undermine its reputation during the ongoing IPL 2025.

In opposition, the defendants contended that the advertisement was a humorous take typical in sporting rivalries and did not constitute disparagement or infringement. They argued that the use of wordplay and the presence of the impugned elements were neither derogatory nor misleading. The phrase "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" was presented as a comical tease, and no direct reference was made to RCB's quality or performance.

The defendants also submitted that their right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protected their ability to make creative and non-defamatory advertisements, citing past cases where humorous and comparative advertisements were permitted.

Further, it was contended that the advertisement merely suggested competitive spirit and banter inherent in sports and did not amount to commercial exploitation or unfair competition. They denied that the advertisement's contents or the slogan could reasonably be interpreted as disparaging or infringing.

The plaintiff, in rebuttal, relied on previous judgments where courts had restrained advertisements and films for derogatory references. However, it was argued by the defendants that those cases were distinguishable on facts.

“Disparagement per se has to have an element of demeaning, criticism, condemning, ridiculing, denigrating, defaming, disgracing, belittling, scorning, mocking, falsity with a view to cause injury and/or harm.”

The Court observed that disparagement requires something negative to be conveyed explicitly or implicitly. It noted that the impugned advertisement, when viewed holistically and through the eyes of a common layman, did not exhibit any elements of disparagement.

“Mere presence of a reference similar to the RCB trademark on the impugned banner, or the impugned poster with the slogan thereon, cannot be said to be having any elements of disparagement and/or infringement within the meaning of Section 29(4) of the TM Act.”

It was held that no derogatory comparisons or negative remarks were made regarding the RCB team’s quality or reputation. The impugned phrases were used humorously in the spirit of sporting rivalry.

“There is nothing underlying in the whole of the impugned advertisement which can cause to trigger or motivate any members of the general public, much less any of the players/viewers/followers of any of the RCB and/or SRH Cricket teams at this stage.”

Addressing Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, the Court held that mere use of a similar mark does not constitute infringement unless it takes unfair advantage or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark.

“The impugned advertisement cannot be said to be false and/or misleading at this stage, and thus there are no acts of disparagement by the defendants.”

The Court also rejected the argument that the word "challenged" signified the RCB team being portrayed as a "loser." It held this interpretation to be speculative.

“The impugned advertisement is within the realm of fair use by the defendants.”

Further, the Court noted the importance of the right to freedom of expression in commercial advertising. “Prolonged litigation can be used to award an effective death sentence to speech/expression at pre-litigation stages.”

The Court, upon consideration of the submissions, evidence and legal position, concluded that no prima facie case of disparagement or infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act was established by the plaintiff. It held that the plaintiff also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, loss, or injury that would warrant an injunction. Further, the Court found that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff.

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Senior Citizen | Sprouted Cannabis Plants In Backyard Without Proof Of Cultivation Do Not Attract Offence

It was specifically observed that the impugned advertisement, being in the context of a game of cricket and involving elements of sportsmanship, did not merit interference at the interlocutory stage. The Court clarified that intervening at this juncture, particularly in a sporting context, would be unwarranted, likening such intervention to allowing a party "to run on water with assurances of their not falling."

Accordingly, the application seeking temporary injunction was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Before concluding, the Court also recorded its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by counsel  for both parties during the proceedings.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Shwetashree Majumder, Ms. Priya Adlaka, Ms. Sucharu Garg and Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sai Krishna Rajagopal, Ms. Julien George, Ms. Anu Paarcha, Mr. Avijit Kumar and Ms. N. Parvati, Advocates.

Case Title: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3292

Case Number: CS(COMM) 345/2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

[Read/Download order]