top of page

Trade marks and Ambush Marketing in Indian Sports: Navigating Legal and Commercial Complexities

  • Drsika Bhutani & Riya Gupta
  • 4 days ago
  • 8 min read

Introduction


The increasing commercialization of sports in India, exemplified by marquee tournaments like the Indian Premier League (IPL) and the Indian Super League (ISL), has brought the issue of ambush marketing to the forefront of legal and commercial discourse. Ambush marketing refers to the practice by which a brand seeks to associate itself with an event, typically a high-profile sporting event, without paying for official sponsorship rights. While such strategies may be creative from a marketing standpoint, they often ride on the goodwill, visibility, and consumer associations built by the event and its official sponsors.

 

At the heart of the legal challenge is trade mark infringement, as ambush marketers frequently employ event names, logos, taglines, team insignia, or confusingly similar branding to suggest an unauthorised association with a particular event. These acts may mislead consumers, dilute the commercial value of registered marks, and erode the exclusivity granted to official sponsors who invest heavily in securing marketing rights. The unauthorised use of protected trade marks, whether directly or through implied references, poses a threat not only to the event organiser’s intellectual property portfolio but also to the broader ecosystem of rights enforcement in Indian sports.[1]

 

Despite the growing frequency of such practices, India lacks a specific statutory regime targeting ambush marketing. Instead, affected stakeholders rely on general provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with common law doctrines such as passing off and unfair competition. While these legal tools offer some degree of recourse, they are often reactive rather than preventive and may fall short in fast-paced media cycles where the commercial impact of a marketing campaign can be immediate and fleeting.

 

This article undertakes a critical examination of ambush marketing in the Indian sports industry with a particular focus on trade mark infringement and the limits of current legal protections. It analyses key judicial pronouncements and the enforcement challenges faced in both traditional and digital advertising landscapes.

 

Enforcing IP Rights to Combat Ambush Marketing in Indian Sports


In the context of Indian sports, where branding, merchandising, and sponsorship play an increasingly central role, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 serves as the primary statutory mechanism for protecting the commercial identity and goodwill associated with sporting events, teams, and affiliated sponsors. While the Act does not explicitly address ambush marketing, its provisions are frequently invoked by rights holders to combat unauthorized commercial exploitation and to safeguard their exclusive brand associations.

 

Section 28[2] confers exclusive rights upon the registered proprietor of a trade mark to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. These rights extend to preventing third parties from using identical or deceptively similar marks in a manner that may mislead the public. In the sporting context, this section empowers event organisers, such as the BCCI for the IPL or the AIFF for the ISL, to challenge non-sponsor brands that attempt to use event names, logos, or team identifiers in their marketing campaigns. For example, a brand using terms like “IPL Offers” or “ISL Mega Sale” without authorisation may be seen as infringing on the exclusive rights granted under this section, especially if such usage suggests a false commercial association with the event.

 

Section 29[3] further strengthens this protection by defining trade mark infringement broadly. It includes not only the use of identical marks but also the use of deceptively similar marks that are likely to cause confusion or suggest a false connection with the trade mark owner. Importantly, under sub-sections (4) and (5), even if the infringing mark is used in relation to dissimilar goods or services, infringement may still be established if the mark enjoys a reputation in India and its use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, its distinctive character or reputation. This provision is particularly relevant in ambush marketing cases where brands attempt indirect associations such as using similar imagery, taglines, colours, or slogans that evoke the event’s identity. Even if the infringer does not directly name the event, the suggestive marketing may still violate Section 29 if it misleads consumers and exploits the goodwill built by the rights holder.

 

In addition to statutory infringement claims, ambush marketing may also give rise to common law actions for passing off, particularly where the disputed mark is not registered but has acquired distinctiveness and reputation through use. This is critical in the Indian sports domain where event names, team slogans, mascots, or short-form abbreviations (e.g., “MI” for Mumbai Indians) may not always be registered trade marks but still carry considerable market recognition. Such claims are increasingly relevant where marketing campaigns attempt to leverage the excitement surrounding a major sports event without crossing the threshold of direct infringement.

 

Evolving Jurisprudence on Ambush Marketing and Trademark Protection in Indian Sports

 

In the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises and Others (2003)[4], the Delhi High Court provided significant insights into ambush marketing during the 2003 Cricket World Cup. The ICC, through its commercial arm ICC Development (International) Ltd., held exclusive rights to the event’s trade marks, logos, and sponsorships. Arvee Enterprises, an authorised dealer for Philips India Ltd., ran promotional campaigns with slogans such as “Philips: Diwali Manao World Cup Jao” and “Buy a Philips Audio System, win a ticket to the World Cup 2003”, indirectly associating with the World Cup without official sponsorship. The ICC alleged this was ambush marketing, damaging the exclusivity and economic interests of official sponsors. The Court found that while Arvee Enterprises had not used the ICC’s registered logos or trade marks directly, their campaign exploited the goodwill of the event and misled the public into perceiving a connection. However, it held that the generic use of the phrase “World Cup” alone was not trade mark infringement, and there was no sufficient confusion to constitute passing off. Thus, although the campaign was recognised as ambush marketing that economically harmed sponsors, it did not amount to a trade mark violation actionable under the current legal framework.

 

Similarly, in Royal Challengers Bengaluru v. Uber Moto & Anr. [5](2025), the Delhi High Court dismissed an interim injunction petition filed by Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) against Uber Moto. The ad at issue contained humorous sports banter involving cricket player Travis Head but did not use RCB’s official logos. The Court held this constituted permissible commentary rather than infringement or disparagement, emphasizing that indirect or humorous references do not amount to trade mark infringement absent clear false association or consumer confusion. This ruling highlights the high threshold the courts maintain before intervening in comparative or cultural sports advertising.

 

These judgments reflect the complexity and limits of trade mark law in addressing ambush marketing in India, underlining the need for more tailored regulatory frameworks to protect the commercial value of sports sponsorships from indirect exploitation.

 

Civil and Criminal Remedies under the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 offers a robust arsenal of remedies to address trade mark violations, including:

●      Civil remedies such as injunctions (including ex parte or Anton Piller orders), delivery up of infringing materials, damages, and account of profits;

●      Criminal remedies under Sections 103–105 for willful infringement, which include imprisonment and fines, providing deterrence;

●      Interim reliefs, which are particularly useful in time-sensitive sports marketing disputes where ambush campaigns may coincide with short tournament windows.

 

Securing Sponsorship Value: Effective IP Protection in Indian Sports Commerce

 

In the era of commercialized sports, the protection of intellectual property (IP), particularly trade marks, has become essential to safeguarding the economic framework that underpins India’s premier leagues such as the IPL and ISL. At the heart of this framework is the ability of sports organizers to offer exclusive sponsorships, whose value is directly tied to the legal exclusivity and brand protection afforded to official partners. Without enforceable IP rights, the justification for the substantial sponsorship fees paid by corporate entities erodes, opening the door to ambush marketing and unauthorized brand associations. Equally critical is the monetization of official merchandise, where teams and leagues increasingly rely on trade mark licensing to sell authentic apparel and collectibles to a growing base of sports consumers. These merchandise sales are not only a key revenue stream but also a vehicle for building fan identity and long-term brand engagement. In parallel, the proliferation of counterfeit goods poses a persistent threat to both revenue and reputation. Effective IP enforcement mechanisms are therefore vital, not merely to protect trade marks in the abstract, but to deter counterfeiting, preserve consumer trust, and sustain the broader ecosystem of legitimate economic activity tied to Indian sports. Conversely, ineffective enforcement and rampant ambush marketing can erode official revenues, disincentivize corporate investments, and damage the credibility of Indian sports events.

 

IP Dispute‑Resolution under the Draft National Sports Governance Bill


The Draft National Sports Governance Bill (2024/2025)[6] introduces a specialized and multi-tiered dispute resolution architecture, aiming to streamline IP, governance, and commercial conflicts within the sports sector, which is critical given the rise of ambush marketing and merchandise‑related trade mark disputes. The Bill mandates that all sports bodies such as NSFs, NOC, NPC, etc. establish internal Dispute Resolution Commissions (DRCs) to address grievances arising within core operational areas, including alleged unauthorised commercial use of trade marks or event branding by non‑sponsors or merchandise vendors. [7]

Beyond the institutional level, the Bill envisages the creation of a National Sports Tribunal (or Appellate Sports Tribunal) vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. This Tribunal serves as the primary adjudicatory body for escalated disputes, including trade mark infringement and broader IP-related controversies, transferring all pending litigation to its jurisdiction and rendering its decisions final and enforceable unless appealed to the Supreme Court within a fixed 30‑day window.[8] 


Significantly, while civil courts are expressly divested of jurisdiction over disputes falling within the Tribunal’s domain, the model mirrors the international Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), promoting speed, expert adjudication, and procedural consistency[9]. The Tribunal’s remit extends to trade mark infringement issues such as, unauthorized use of event names or logos by third parties leveraging ambush marketing tactics, and covers both registered trade mark rights and incidents of passing off or dilution tied to merchandising activities.


By embedding such a structure, the Bill aims to ensure that sports federations and rights holders can seek specialized, expedited relief, particularly injunctive and declaratory remedies, against ambush campaigns or counterfeit merchandise that threaten official sponsorship and brand integrity. This IP-centric dispute resolution mechanism provides a proactive framework to counter trade mark misuse, instead of relying solely on conventional courts with attendant delays and procedural complexity.

 

Conclusion


Ambush marketing presents a nuanced threat to the integrity of sponsorship, branding, and merchandising in Indian sports. While existing legal remedies under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, backed by common law principles, offer some protection against unauthorized brand associations, they remain largely reactive and ill-equipped to address the evolving tactics of ambush marketers. Judicial reluctance to intervene in cases lacking direct infringement or overt confusion underscores the limitations of the current framework. As the commercial value of sports IP continues to grow, robust enforcement mechanisms and tailored legislative interventions are imperative. The proposed dispute resolution framework under the Draft National Sports Governance Bill marks a step in the right direction, promising expedited, expert adjudication of IP conflicts. However, meaningful deterrence will ultimately depend on a proactive legal regime, one that not only safeguards registered trademarks but also anticipates the subtlety and speed of modern marketing strategies.



References:

[2] Section 28 of Trade Marks Act, 1999

[3] Section 29 of Trade Marks Act, 1999

[4] 2003(26)PTC245(DEL)

[5] CS(COMM) 345/2025

Comments

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
bottom of page