The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to order Uber India to take down its advertisement which allegedly disparaged IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB)..Justice Saurabh Banerjee ruled that the Court's interference was not warranted at this stage. Judgment said "The impugned advertisement is in the context of a game of Cricket, a game of sportsmanship, which, in the opinion of this Court, does not call for interference of any sort at this stage, especially while this Court is considering the present application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. More so, since in a case like the present one, interference by this Court, at this stage, would tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling.".The ad in question features Australia and Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketer Travis Head as ‘Hyderabaddie’, promoting the bike taxi service Uber Moto. He is seen spray-painting the phrase “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” on a stadium signboard ahead of a fictional match.During the last hearing, Justice Banerjee made an oral prima facie observation suggesting that the ad may warrant some modification, noting, “Prima facie there is something which requires some changes.” The Court had subsequently reserved its verdict on RCB’s plea for an interim injunction to take down the ad..Appearing for RCB on April 17, Advocate Shwetasree Majumder argued that the campaign crosses the line from parody into commercial disparagement. “You are using a deprecatory variant of my trademark. Everyone in the fanbase understands that you are taking a dig at RCB. It basically tries to make me a laughing stock," she said.Majumder further emphasised the commercial and emotional significance IPL franchises hold among fans. “These are commercial enterprises…You’ve chosen to advertise [your service] by disparaging my mark.”.In response, Uber’s counsel Saikrishna Rajagopal defended the ad as being humorous and contextually grounded. “The plaintiff has severely and massively discounted the sense of humour of the viewing public,” he argued, stating that the line “Royally Challenged” was a light-hearted reference to RCB's chances in the upcoming May 13 match in Bengaluru.Rajagopal also denied any exclusive tie-up between Uber and Sunrisers Hyderabad, stating the company does not promote any one team. He argued that the ad was not disparaging but provocative at best, and removing it 10 days after its release would be unwarranted..After nearly two hours of arguments, the Court had reserved its order on whether Uber should be restrained from continuing the campaign while the matter is being adjudicated..The Court structured its analysis around two legal tests:Whether the advertisement amounted to disparagement;Whether it infringed the RCB trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act.Justice Banerjee emphasized that disparagement must involve demeaning, ridiculing, or defamatory content with an intent to cause harm. Referring to established precedents such as PepsiCo v. Hindustan Coca-Cola and Gillette India v. Reckitt Benckiser, the Court concluded that Uber’s ad lacked such elements.“There is no element of demeaning, criticism, ridiculing or falsity... There are no acts of disparagement by the defendants,” the judgment held..On the issue of trademark infringement, the Court noted that Section 29(4) required proof of use of a deceptively similar mark in the course of trade, without due cause, and that such use took unfair advantage of or was detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered mark.The Court found no evidence of commercial exploitation or dilution of the RCB brand. Even if the wordplay “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” was interpreted as a play on the RCB name, it lacked the elements necessary to constitute trademark infringement.“Mere presence of a reference similar to the RCB trademark on the impugned banner cannot be said to be having any elements of disparagement or infringement,” the Court noted..The Court also stressed that advertisers enjoy constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a), subject to reasonable restrictions. The Uber campaign, the Court observed, was an example of permissible commercial speech and humour in the context of a cricket match.The judgment said "It must be borne in mind that prolonged litigation can be used to award an effective death sentence to speech/ expression at pre-litigation stages.".The Court held that no irreparable harm or loss had been shown by the plaintiff. Observing that public reaction to the ad included positive comments from RCB fans themselves, the Court ruled that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.“This is not a telltale,” the Court remarked, refusing to accept selective online comments as proof of reputational damage..Accordingly, the Court dismissed the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC..Read Judgment
