Introduction
The case involves Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (the plaintiff) and Uber India Systems Private Limited along with its associates (the defendants). The dispute centers around a social media advertisement posted by Uber that the plaintiff claims disparages and infringes upon its well-known trademark "Royal Challengers Bengaluru" (RCB), associated with its IPL cricket team.
Background
The plaintiff is the registered owner of the RCB trademark and has built a significant reputation around it in India. The defendants, a ride-hailing company and its affiliates, posted an advertisement on various social media platforms collaborating with an Australian cricketer, featuring a promotional campaign that included references to the RCB team. The advertisement used the phrase "Royally Challenged Bengaluru," which the plaintiff contends is derogatory and damaging to its brand.
Legal Contentions
The plaintiff argued that the advertisement not only infringes upon their registered trademark under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act but also disparages their reputation. It claimed that the depiction and language used are demeaning, designed to mock or devalue the brand. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from broadcasting, publishing, or further disseminating this advertisement, asserting that they would suffer irreparable harm if the ad remained.
The defendants contended that the advertisement was a humorous, light-hearted parody or tease based on city names ("Hyderabad" and "Bengaluru") and did not intend or cause any trademark infringement or disparagement. They claimed the ad was a form of satire common in sporting culture and did not harm the reputation of the RCB team.
Court's Analysis
The court examined whether the advertisement constituted infringing use of the RCB trademark and if it caused disparagement. It considered the likelihood of confusion, the intent behind the advertisement, and whether the depiction was derogatory or merely humorous. The court noted that while the ad featured references to the RCB team, the overall tone and context pointed towards playful teasing rather than malicious intent.
Furthermore, the court balanced the rights of the plaintiff against the freedom of expression and the nature of the advertisement as part of sports-related humor. It acknowledged that the advertisement was in the context of a cricket game, where parody and teasing are customary. Considering the absence of clear evidence of irreparable harm or direct infringement sufficient to justify injunction, the court decided that temporarily restraining the advertisement was not warranted at this stage.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, stating that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement strong enough to outweigh the public interest and the rights of the defendants to free expression. The court emphasized that interference at this preliminary stage would be premature and could unduly restrict the defendants' freedom to create humor and satire related to cricket.
Case Significance
This case highlights the tension between trademark rights and freedom of speech in the context of sports and advertising. It underscores that parody, satire, and humor, especially related to popular culture, may have a protective space under freedom of expression, provided they do not cross into actual infringement or defamatory disparagement.
Case Details
Case Title: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited Vs. Uber India Systems Private Limited Order Date: May 5, 2025 Case No.: CS (COMM) 345/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3292. Court: Delhi High Court Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
