Facts of the Case:

The present case has arisen out of a dispute concerning an advertisement released by the defendants, who are identified as ride-hailing companies, Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., Uber Technologies Inc. (USA) and a well-known cricketer Travis Head (defendant no. 3) featured therein. It has been alleged by the plaintiff, the proprietor of the trademark for the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) cricket team, that disparagement of their trademark and cricket team was caused by the impugned advertisement during the ongoing Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 season. Reference was also made in the advertisement to a cricket match scheduled to be played between the RCB and Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) teams in Bengaluru.

In the advertisement, defendant no. 3 has been shown as himself, availing the services of defendant nos. 1 and 2. Although defendant no. 3 has been described as a cricketer who identifies himself as a "Hyderabaddie," no instance has been shown where he was seen wearing the SRH cricket team jersey or making any reference to the SRH team. It has been contended by the plaintiff that a misleading impression was created and disparagement of the RCB trademark was caused by the use of the defendants’ services in connection with cricket.

The defendants have submitted that no nexus with cricket teams has been established, as defendant nos. 1 and 2 are engaged only in the provision of ride-hailing services unrelated to cricket. Further, no direct or indirect comparison or criticism of the RCB team or its trademark has been made, nor has any parody or sarcasm been intended. The banner and poster depicted in the advertisement have been acknowledged as only referring to the upcoming cricket match between RCB and SRH, which is a matter of public fact.

The slogan "Ee Sala Cup Namde," displayed on a stadium wall in the advertisement, has been alleged by the plaintiff to be disparaging towards the RCB team. However, it has been noted by the court that the slogan was displayed without any comment or reference elsewhere in the advertisement that could be construed as disparagement or infringement. No harm to the reputation or goodwill of the RCB trademark has been caused by the defendants, who have maintained that the advertisement is a creative and humorous depiction related to the game of cricket.

Arguments by Plaintiff:

1.     It was argued that the RCB’s trademark and catchphrase were indirectly mocked.

2.     It was contended that viewers might associate the character with ridiculing RCB’s IPL performance.

3.     Plaintiff emphasized that the depiction had commercial implications that harmed the brand's reputation.

4.     They alleged disparagement, undue advantage, and trademark dilution under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

Arguments by Defendant:

1. It was submitted that there was no reference to RCB’s team or performance anywhere in the ad.
2. It was argued that the character “Hyderabaddie” was fictional and humorous, with no malicious intent.
3. The ad did not show RCB’s players, jersey, or logo directly.
4. Defendants claimed the content was creative, humorous, and protected under the right to commercial free speech (Article 19(1)(a)).
5. They also argued that the slogan “Ee Sala Cup Namde” was shown in a neutral and factual context.

Findings of the Hon’ble Court:

It was found that no element of disparagement or infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trademark Act was caused by the use of a reference similar to the RCB trademark in the advertisement.

It was observed that the defendant appearing in the advertisement was shown only as himself, with no reference or association made to the SRH cricket team, and no use of the team’s jersey was depicted. The advertisement was deemed to reflect, at most, the context of an upcoming cricket match without any direct or indirect comparison or disparagement of the RCB trademark or team.

It was concluded that no false, misleading, or defamatory statements or actions were made by the defendants in the advertisement. The advertisement was recognized as falling within the realm of fair use and creative expression, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

A prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement was not made out in favor of the plaintiff. No irreparable harm or injury was found likely to be caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction was denied.

On consideration of the balance of convenience, it was held that the plaintiff’s claim did not outweigh the defendants’ rights to free expression, and no temporary injunction was warranted.

Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Conclusion:

It was held by the Court that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act against the defendants. It was found that no irreparable injury, loss, or harm would be caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction was refused. So, the application for the temporary injunction was dismissed.