Delhi High Court Declines Interim Relief to RCB in Suit Over Uber’s ‘Hyderabaddie’ Ad

The Delhi High Court has declined to grant interim relief to Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) in its legal action against Uber India over the now-viral ‘Hyderabaddie’ advertisement featuring cricketer Travis Head.

In its order, Justice Saurabh Banerjee ruled that the advertisement, viewed in the context of cricket and sportsmanship, does not warrant judicial interference at this stage. “This Court is of the opinion that the impugned ad does not cross the line into disparagement or trademark infringement,” the judgment stated.

The controversial ad, which promotes Uber Moto, shows Australian cricketer Travis Head spray-painting “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” on a stadium signboard before a fictional cricket match, playing on RCB’s name and performance history. RCB contended that this amounted to commercial disparagement and unauthorised trademark usage.

Representing RCB, Advocate Shwetasree Majumder argued the phrase mocked the team’s brand, undermining its value and making it a “laughing stock.” She emphasized that IPL franchises are commercial entities with deep emotional and economic ties to their fan bases.

Uber’s counsel, Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, countered that the advertisement was light-hearted and fell within the realm of humorous commercial speech. He noted that the ad made no exclusive association with Sunrisers Hyderabad or any other team.

Justice Banerjee referred to legal standards of disparagement and trademark infringement, noting that mere satire or wordplay does not qualify unless there is clear intent to harm a brand’s reputation. Relying on past precedents, the Court held that no acts of demeaning or ridicule were established.

The Court also emphasized the protection of commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and warned against the misuse of litigation to suppress legitimate expression.

Finding no irreparable harm or loss to RCB, the Court dismissed the plea for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *