RCB takes Uber to court over use of trademark in promotional video

Royal Challengers Sports Pvt Ltd, the owner of IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), has filed a lawsuit against Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd in the Delhi High Court, accusing the company of unauthorised use and distortion of its trademarked slogan and team name in a recent advertisement promoting its bike-taxi service.

The advertisement, titled “Baddies in Bengaluru”, was released on April 5 and features Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) player Travis Head, a former RCB team member. The video has garnered over 1.3 million views on YouTube.

RCB’s legal team argued before Justice Saurabh Banerjee that the ad infringes on the team’s popular slogan “Ee Sala Cup Namde” (This year, the cup is ours) and presents a distorted version of their official name, Royal Challengers Bengaluru, in a manner that they claim “mocks and dilutes” the franchise’s identity.

In the ad, Travis Head’s character is shown entering a stadium logistics room and spray-painting ‘Royal Challengers Bangalore’, alongside branding the matchup as “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad”, which RCB alleges is a veiled reference to the upcoming IPL fixture. The team claims this amounts to trademark disparagement, citing online backlash and fan ridicule.

“This is a targeted attempt to mock and dilute the identity of Royal Challengers Bengaluru,” RCB’s counsel told the court.

Uber, however, defended the commercial as a “lighthearted promotional campaign” meant to highlight the speed advantage of Uber Moto in Bengaluru’s notorious traffic. The company denied direct trademark usage and stated that the ad’s references were generic and humorous.

Uber’s legal team claimed the ad plays on Travis Head’s character name “Hyderabadi” to suggest that SRH would “royally challenge” RCB in their match on May 13, describing the campaign as an exercise of commercial free speech. 

“RCB has severely and massively underestimated the Indian public’s sense of humour, including that of their own fanbase,” Uber’s counsel said, adding, “RCB should combat humour with humour, not with a lawsuit.”

RCB maintained that the issue was not humour, but the unauthorised commercial use of its brand identity, which holds substantial promotional and financial value.

After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Banerjee reserved judgment on RCB’s request for an interim injunction, noting the subjective nature of interpreting satire. 

“The moment you ask a person, a layman or a court to see the ad and decipher, I can form or have an opinion which is different than yours. There lies the issue of injunction,” the judge remarked.