No Pun Intended: The RCB-Uber Case

Eshanika Sharma
11 minutes ago
5 min read

Introduction

In a case before the Delhi High Court that intersects the worlds of cricket, commercial rivalry, and creative advertising, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited[1] raised critical questions about the limits of humour in brand expression. At the heart of the dispute was a one-minute Uber Moto advertisement that rebranded Royal Challengers Bengaluru (‘RCB’) as ‘Royally Challenged Bengaluru’, a pun that the team’s owner claimed was far from playful. Alleging trademark infringement and disparagement, the case put the spotlight on how far a pun can go before it becomes a legal wrong, especially in the high-stakes arena of Indian Premier League (‘IPL’) fandom.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff is the owner of the IPL team Royal Challengers Bengaluru and the Proprietor of the famous "Royal Challengers Bengaluru" mark. It took legal action after finding itself in the crosshairs of a controversial advertisement. The advertisement, launched on April 5, 2025 over various social media platforms by popular Indian ride-hailing company Uber Moto featured an Australian cricketer playing for rival IPL team Sunrisers Hyderabad. The cricketer, along with an accomplice, is shown entering a cricket stadium and writing Royally Challenged before Bengaluru V. Hyderabad. Following this, both characters get away just in time using a reliable Uber Moto ride, which arrives in only three minutes.

Within the brief advertisement, the Plaintiff alleged that the contents therein deface the well-known mark "Royal Challengers Bengaluru showing a deprecatory version ‘Royally Challenged Bengaluru’. The advertisement also contained the Kannada slogan ‘Ee Sala Cup Namde’ popularly associated with RCB. Lastly, the final frame of the advertisement showed Uber Moto as the ‘Official Ride Partner of the Hyderabaddies’, referencing the rival cricket team who is the hidden advertiser. Thus, the Plaintiff alleged that this advertisement, crossed the line from humour into trademark infringement and disparagement, tarnishing the reputation of a team beloved by millions.

The Defendant’s learned counsel argued that the Plaintiff’s claims are nothing more than an overreaction, an instance of “hypersensitivity”. According to the Defendant, the advertisement in question was never meant to be malicious. Instead, it was a humorous pun, a nod to the spirited rivalry of the game of cricket. It was argued that even if one assumes the phrase ‘Royally Challenged Bengaluru’ relates to the RCB team, the phrase is a classic example of sporting banter, not a defamatory jab. It was emphasized that parody and light-hearted teasing are not only common in the sports culture but are also embraced and enjoyed by fans around the world. According to the defence, this kind of playful commentary is culturally entrenched in cricket.

Court’s Analysis

The issue before the Court was whether the alleged playful jibe actually disparaged the reputation associated with “Royal Challengers Bangalore”, and whether there was any trademark violation at all.

Disparagement must be such that it conveys a prima facie negative attribute to the audience. It needs to have an element of criticising, condemning, ridiculing, falsifying, etc., with an intent to cause harm. Much like a clean bowled-out in cricket, disparagement strikes at the core of a manufacturer’s reputation but determining whether it’s a fair delivery or a no-ball requires a holistic view. Courts have previously held that advertisements must be assessed in their entirety, rather than broken down into isolated elements. More importantly, any allegation of disparagement in advertising must be carefully balanced with the advertiser’s right to freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. As affirmed in Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL,.[2] “in cases where commercials and advertisements are called into question as being disparaging, what weighs in the balance is the right to free speech and to promote one’s product in the manner one deems most appropriate. A competitor must not be permitted…to dictate the manner in which his rival’s product is to be advertised. His right begins and ends with ensuring that his product is not disparaged. Additionally, the highest he can seek is that the rival does not, in puffing up his product, resort to serious representations of face which are misleading or incorrect.” Following this, the Court observed that unless there are any qualitative or quantitative assertions in an advertisement, some exaggeration, provided it is truthful, is permissible. Thus, “...even exaggeration in an advertisement is permissible, however….it is only when superiority is claimed with respect to a specific aspect by the advertiser over the rival products will truth be required to be established”.

The Court further noted that with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim of trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Plaintiff must establish all the elements prescribed therein, and the threshold of proof is higher. Section 29(4), which deals with trademark dilution, does not allow for any presumption of infringement[3] and must be balanced against the right to freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. This means that even if an identical and/or deceptively trademark is shown in the advertisement, an action under Section 29(4) would not lie as a natural consequence.

Applying this framework, the Court analysed the advertisement and observed that the intent, manner and message of the advertisement was not to disparage Royal Challengers Bangalore, but to show the quickness and reliability of Uber-Moto rides. The advertisement nowhere engaged in a direct comparison with Sunrisers Hyderabad. No fingers were raised at the performance of the RCB, no disparaging remarks made, and there was no hit at RCB’s image. Instead, the advertisement played on the excitement and spirit of cricket season suggesting a light-hearted challenge, not a commercial ambush. The mere use of the RCB trademark or slogan, in the absence of any derogatory or comparative content, does not meet the high threshold of infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, where no presumption of infringement applies. At best, the advertisement referenced an upcoming match between RCB and Sunrisers Hyderabad. In light of this, and considering the importance of free commercial expression, the Court held that the advertisement could not amount to a legal wrong.

Conclusion

The Court delivered a verdict grounded in perspective of the balance between the fundamental right of expression and rights guaranteed to a trademark holder under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It held that the impugned advertisement, was far from a malicious attack on the RCB brand. Instead, the Court saw it for what it was, a light-hearted narrative aimed at highlighting Uber Moto’s speed and convenience, not a battlefield for trademarks. No common person would interpret the advertisement in a derogatory light. Instead, in line with the spirit of cricket it is a mere challenge to the rival team in light of the then upcoming cricket match. The Court observed that the advertisement must be viewed as a whole, not selectively; when seen from the perspective of an average viewer, it does not amount to disparagement or trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, the phrase “Royally Challenged” before a Bengaluru vs. Hyderabad match was viewed as a harmless pun, not a jab at the Royal Challengers team. With no SRH logos, no team jerseys, and no attempt to compare performances or degrade the RCB trademark, the Court ruled out disparagement or infringement.

References: