No Interim Relief for RCB Over Uber’s ‘Baddies in Bengaluru’ Ad

In a judgment dated May 5, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea seeking a take-down of Uber’s ‘Baddies in Bengaluru’ ad, which allegedly disparaged and infringed the ‘Royal Challengers Bengaluru’ (RCB) trademark.[1]

The ad, featuring Travis Head of Sunrisers Hyderabad, shows characters spray-painting the words ‘Royally Challenged’ before ‘Bengaluru v. Hyderabad’ on a stadium headboard and afterwards running towards the Uber Moto riders who arrived outside the stadium within the scheduled time of 3 minutes. During the escape, the poster bearing the fan chant ‘Ee Sala Cup Namde’ is visible in the background.

The Court observed that throughout the ad, there was no direct or indirect insinuation, comparison or distortion of matters of fact against the RCB trademark or the RCB cricket team. That being so, there was no element of demeaning, ridiculing, or falsity with a view to injuring or harming the RCB trademark or the RCB cricket team. Even the slogan ‘Ee Sala Cup Namde’ was depicted as it was.

Further, the Court held that there was nothing in the advertisement that could be described as negative, derogatory, or denigratory. It further noted that allegations of disparagement could not rest solely on a few stray viewer comments or social media reactions. The advertisement, in the Court’s view, fell well within the bounds of fair use by the defendants.

Taking a holistic view, the Court found that the general impression created by the advertisement was one of a healthy banter and lighthearted humour without any elements of disparagement and/ or infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with regards to the RCB trademark or the RCB cricket team.

The Court concluded that the owner of the RCB cricket team had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparagement and/ or infringement of trademark under Section 29(4). Further, this was not a case of any irreparable harm, loss and injury likely to be caused to the owner if a temporary injunction was not granted in its favour; nor did the balance of convenience favour the grant of a temporary injunction against Uber.

Lastly, the Court emphasised that the advertisement is in the context of a game of cricket, a game of sportsmanship, and no judicial intervention was warranted at this stage.

[1] Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited and Ors. [CS(COMM) 345/2025]