RCB vs Uber: Delhi High Court’s Landmark Decision on Disparagement, Trademark Infringement & Commercial Speech in Advertising
- Kiratraj Sadana
- May 7, 2025
- 3 min read
Updated: May 15, 2025
Case: Royal Challengers Sports Pvt Ltd v. Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: CS(COMM) 345/2025
Decision Date: 5 May 2025
Introduction
The Delhi High Court’s recent ruling in RCB v. Uber is a watershed moment in the interplay between trademark law, disparagement, and commercial free speech in India.
At its core, the case pitted the intellectual property rights of a premier IPL franchise against the creative freedom of a global ridesharing giant. The Court’s ruling reinforced key principles of disparagement law, the scope of trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the constitutional protection of commercial speech.
Brief Facts
Plaintiff: Royal Challengers Sports Pvt Ltd (owners of Royal Challengers Bengaluru or RCB, a franchise in the Indian Premier League).
Defendants: Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd and others.
Dispute:
Uber released an advertisement featuring cricketer Travis Head. In the ad, Head—playing a mischievous "anti-hero"—spray paints “Royally Challenged Bengaluru”, a pun on the RCB name, on a stadium wall. The ad also showed the slogan “Ee Sala Cup Namde”, a phrase widely associated with RCB fans.
RCB argued that:
This amounted to disparagement of their brand.
It infringed their registered trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
They sought an interim injunction to restrain Uber from broadcasting the ad.
Key Legal Issues
Does the advertisement amount to disparagement under Indian law?
Does it infringe the RCB trademark as per Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
Where does the right to free commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution fit into this dispute?
Disparagement Law in India: An Overview
What is Disparagement?
Disparagement involves making false and injurious statements that harm the reputation of another’s goods, services, or brand.
While India has no statutory definition of disparagement, courts have shaped the doctrine through case law.
Key Judicial Principles:
👉 Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. [(2003) 27 PTC 305 (Del)]
Laid down the famous three-part test:
Intent of the advertisement.
Manner of presentation.
Message conveyed.
👉 Gillette India Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126]
Held that disparagement requires the ad to:
Ridicule or undervalue the competitor’s product.
Go beyond puffery (general self-praise).
👉 S.C. Johnson & Son v. Buchanan Group Pty Ltd. [(2010) 42 PTC 77 (Del)]
Confirmed that denigration must be specific and serious.
Comparative Advertising:
Indian law permits comparative advertising (highlighting your product as better than a competitor’s) but prohibits disparagement (attacking the competitor’s product or brand unfairly).
The Court’s Analysis & Decision
On Disparagement:
The Court observed that sports banter, parody, and humour are culturally entrenched in cricket.
The ad did not criticise, demean, or falsely represent the RCB team.
No reasonable viewer would perceive it as disparaging.
On Trademark Infringement:
The ad was not “use in the course of trade” for competing services.
There was no consumer confusion, unfair advantage, or reputation damage.
Even if the ad involved a pun on RCB’s name, light-hearted use of a mark does not constitute infringement under Section 29(4).
On Free Speech:
The Court relied on Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL [(1995) 5 SCC 139] and Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment [(2025) 1 SCC 741], affirming that commercial speech enjoys constitutional protection.
Interfering with such creative ads could have a chilling effect on free expression and advertising creativity.
Final Ruling:
No prima facie case of disparagement or infringement.
No irreparable harm to RCB.
Balance of convenience favoured Uber’s right to creative commercial expression.
Comments