RCB Bowled Out in Court: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against Uber’s Travis Head Ad

According to LiveLaw, the Delhi High Court on 5 May denied an interim injunction petition that the IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) had brought against Uber Moto over a purportedly offensive YouTube ad that featured Travis Head of Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH).

RCB's request for an interim injunction was denied by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who stated that the disputed advertising did not call for any action at this time. According to the Delhi High Court, which Livelaw cited, the contested advertising is about a game of sportsmanship called cricket, which does not, in this court's view, require any kind of intervention at this time.

The HC said that the plaintiff could run on water with guarantees that they wouldn't fall because, in a situation like this one, the court's intervention at this point would equate to falling. Consequently, the current application is denied.

Why RCB went to HC?

Travis Head, a cricket player of Sunrisers Hyderabad, appears in the Uber YouTube promo as part of the "Hyderabaddie" campaign. As a humorous jab at the rival IPL club Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), Head is seen in the advertisement changing a banner to say "Royally Challenged Bengaluru".

The ad, which was meant to advertise Uber's bike taxi service, caused controversy since RCB claimed it violated their trademark and denigrated their brand. RCB claimed that this action, together with the use of their trademarked slogan "Ee Sala Cup Namde", denigrated and diluted their corporate identity. There are currently 2 million views for the 0.59-second video.

RCB’s Allegations

Given that Uber Moto is a commercial sponsor of SRH, a rival IPL club, RCB said that Uber's advertisement amounted to commercial ridicule and brand dilution due to its illegal use and distortion of their trademark.

The franchise requested a temporary injunction to prevent Uber from showing the commercial. The complaint was dismissed as unfounded by Uber, which defended the advertisement as a form of commercial free speech and marketing.

The court ruled that the complainant had not established a prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement against the defendants.

According to the court, there is currently nothing in the advertising that might incite or inspire anyone in the general public, much less any RCB or SRH cricket players, fans, or watchers.

The court pointed out that there cannot be a one-sided impression or version of the contested advertisement, especially when what the plaintiff believes to be "right" may be "wrong" in the defendants' eyes, and vice versa.

Since there are always two sides to a story, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the act or acts of disparagement based solely on the opinions, remarks, or statements of a small number of viewers or followers. In any case, that cannot serve as the standard by which the act of disparagement and/or infringement is judged.