IPL 2025: RCB sues Uber over derogatory ad featuring Travis Head, Delhi HC reserves order

According to Majumder, disparagement occurs as soon as an unfavorable remark is made. She added that Uber Moto, the commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad, utilized RCB's trademark in the course of its business, namely its "deceptive variant" to promote its product (bike booking), which was illegal.

She added that the fan comments on the video left no doubt that Uber Moto was picking up at RCB and it was a case of use of deceptively similar variation of RCB's trademark.

“You had millions of creative ways to do advertisement. Did you have to do it using my trademark? And using someone who was earlier with me? Does parity, fair use defence lies in the mouth of Uber Moto?” she said further.

Explained: Was Mitchell Starc's controversial no-ball call DC vs RR Super Over correct? Here's what the rule says

However, the attorney representing Uber Moto said that the complaint had a basic flaw and RCB had a "severely discounted" sense of humor about the general population.
According to him, the main message of the ad in question is that the public must utilize Uber moto because of the heavy traffic in the city and that the RCB vs Sunrisers Hyderabad match is scheduled for May 13 at the Bengaluru cricket stadium.

Regarding this Justice Banerjee informed the attorney that he was considering two factors: "one, Uber's role as Sunrisers Hyderabad's advertising partner, and second, Travis Head, who plays cricket for that team."

Also Read | After David Warner, Sam Billings faces awkward IPL vs PSL question by PAK scribe: 'You want me to say something silly?'

Uber's lawyer retorted that Head does not refer to RCB as "baddies" in the advertisement; rather, he merely states that he will cause the other side headaches. The lawyer went on to say that the advertisement's message is that the public should think about using Uber Moto since RCB would be "royally challenged" in the May 13 match.

“In the past, teams have challenged RCB and there have been media articles saying RCB has been royally challenged in the match,” he argued.

Orally Justice Banerjee stated that he was not arguing that the advertisement itself was objectionable, but rather that the platform on which the film was posted could be. “This is open to interpretation. I am being open, the moment you ask a person, a layman or a Court to see the ad and decipher. I can form or have an opinion which is different than yours. There lies the issue of injunction,” the judge added.

Also Read | 'He's not doing it for attention': Real reason behind Digvesh Rathi's controversial 'notebook' celebration

Uber's attorney retorted that the issue falls within commercial free speech, which is not subject to an injunction. He referred to the lawsuit as "preposterous" and stated that RCB should use humor rather than legal action to counteract humor.

Majumder then retorted that while it was acceptable to have fun, Uber Moto could not do the same by stealing RCB's trademark, which is valuable to the IPL team financially, and use it in a dishonest way.

Uber's lawyer said that banter, humor, and a feeling of fun are essential components of advertising messaging and if the RCB proposed standard is implemented, these elements will be eliminated.

Also Read: BCCI clarifies stance on IPL 2025 'bat check' row as instances of illegal bats increase

“If I am referring to RCB and that is the script of the ad, then I am entitled to refer to them so long as I do it without disparaging them or encashing on their reputation and there is no harm to their trademark,” the counsel added.

After hearing from the parties, the court postponed its decision regarding RCB's plea for an interim injunction. Since both parties addressed significant concerns and cited case law to support them, Justice Banerjee stated that an order should be issued in the interim injunction motion and that no response was necessary.