IPL’s RCB franchise sues Uber over Travis Head Ad

The Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has filed a civil suit against Uber Moto before the Delhi High Court (HC) for an advertisement that “disparages” its trademark. The ad is part of Uber’s new “Hyderabaddie” campaign for Uber Moto, the bike taxi service. According to a LiveLaw report, Justice Saurabh Banerjee has reserved judgment on RCB’s plea seeking an interim injunction, after hearing both sides at length.

The video in question:On April 4, 2025, Uber India posted an ad on Instagram featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad’s (SRH) Australian batter Travis Head. The cab aggregator uploaded the same video on YouTube, titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head”, on its official YouTube channel on April 5, 2025.



The ad shows a person smuggling the cricketer into a stadium inside a wooden box. After the batter makes it past a security guard, the video shows Head wearing a high-visibility vest, standing in front of a banner that reads “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad”. The video then cuts to Head spray painting the banner to write “Royally Challenged” over Bengaluru, making it “Royally Challenged Bengaluru”.

He later escapes the chasing guards on an Uber Moto bike. The ad is part of Uber India’s latest “Hyderabaddie” campaign for its bike taxi service. The ad in question currently has about 1.

4 million views on YouTube and 148 million views on Instagram. What are RCB’s allegations?Advocate Shwetasree Majumder, appearing for Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited, the owner of RCB, reportedly said that Head’s character in the video disparages RCB’s trademark. She said that in the video “Head is seen running towards [the] Bengaluru cricket stadium with an aim to vandalize the signage of “Bengaluru v.

Hyderabad”, [he] takes a spray paint and writes “Royally Challenged” Bengaluru in place of “Bengaluru” which disparages RCB’s mark.” Further, Majumder asserted that there is disparagement the moment a negative comment is made. She also said that Uber Moto, which is the commercial sponsor of SRH, used RCB’s trademark, that too its “deceptive variant”, in the course of promoting its product (booking bikes): which was not permissible as per Indian law.

Majumder argued that the fan comments on the video “leave no manner of doubt” that Uber was “picking up at RCB” and that it was a case of using a deceptively similar variant of RCB’s trademark. She remarked: “You had millions of creative ways to do [the] advertisement. Did you have to do it using my trademark? And using someone who was earlier with me? Does parity, fair use defence lie in the mouth of Uber Moto?”Uber India’s defenceAdvocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, appearing for Uber, argued that there was a “fundamental problem” with the civil suit, and that RCB had a “severely discounted” sense of humour.

He claimed that the general messaging of the advertisement in question was that on May 13, there is a match between RCB and SRH at the M.Chinnaswamy Stadium, and since Bengaluru is a traffic jam city, the public must use Uber Moto’s motorbike rides.“In the past, teams have challenged RCB and there have been media articles saying RCB has been royally challenged in the match,” Rajagopal said.

Justice Banerjee said: “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.”Rajagopal argued that the case is “covered by commercial free speech”, which cannot be “injuncted”. He added that the suit is “preposterous” and that RCB should counter “humour with humour”.

Justice Banerjee reserved his judgment on RCB’s plea seeking an interim injunction after he heard arguments from both sides. He said that an order should be passed in the interim injunction application, since both sides addressed substantial arguments and relied on case laws for support. He added that there was no need to file any response.

Why this matters?During the hearing, Justice Banerjee said that there were two factors weighing in his mind. One is that Uber is an advertising partner of SRH, and another is that Travis Head is the cricketer of that team.Therefore, it becomes important to note that the cab aggregator’s ad featured a player from SRH, and involved denigrating the RCB franchise: which is SRH’s direct competitor in the IPL.

Notably, in the Dabur India Limited versus Dhruv Rathee case, the Calcutta HC pointed out that Rathee, while making direct and brazen references against one of Dabur’s products, had denigrated the Real fruit juice brand. What is worth noting is that in this case as well, Rathee (like Uber in the case above) was not a direct competitor of the plaintiff.Therefore, what the Delhi HC decides in the RCB vs Uber case could set another precedent for future trademark disparagement cases in India, especially when the advertiser is not a competitor brand.

Also Read:IPL 2025 Could See Major Revenue Shift as BCCI Considers Alcohol Ad BanIPL Fever Fuels Rise in Illegal Gambling: Chhattisgarh HC Cracks DownAhead of IPL season, DGGI cracks down on offshore online gaming entitiesThe post IPL’s RCB franchise sues Uber over Travis Head Ad appeared first on MEDIANAMA..