SRH’s Travis Head-Uber ad case: Delhi HC dismisses RCB’s plea

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), seeking an interim injunction against an advertisement by Uber India featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) cricketer Travis Head.

The controversy centred around an Uber Moto advertisement titled ‘Baddies in Bengaluru.’ Released ahead of a fictional match between RCB and SRH, the ad featured Australian cricketer Travis Head, introduced with the pun ‘Hyderabaddie.’

In the ad, Head is depicted entering a stadium's logistics room and spray-painting over a 'Bengaluru vs Hyderabad' signage, altering it to read ‘Royally Challenged Bengaluru.’ The ad quickly gained traction, garnering millions of views since its release on April 5th.

RCB's Legal Challenge

RCB filed a lawsuit arguing that the advertisement constituted commercial disparagement and infringed upon its registered trademark ‘Royal Challengers Bengaluru.’

RCB argued that the ad was a targeted attempt to mock and dilute the identity of Royal Challengers Bengaluru and presented evidence of negative comments and online ridicule directed at the team following the ad's release, claiming reputational harm.

ALSO READ: Will IPL 2025 be cancelled amid nationwide civil defence mock drills and India-Pakistan tension?

Uber's Defence: Humour and Context

Uber vehemently contested RCB's claims and argued that RCB had “severely and massively discounted the sense of humour of the viewing public,” including RCB's own fanbase.

It denied any exclusive sponsorship tie-up with SRH and asserted that the ad was provocative at best, and removing it would be unwarranted.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the case and ultimately dismissed RCB's application for an interim injunction.

The court found that the advertisement, when viewed holistically, conveyed “healthy banter and good-natured lighthearted humour." Justice Banerjee stated there was "no element of demeaning/ criticism/ condemning/ ridiculing/ defaming/ mocking or falsity" intended to harm the RCB trademark or team.

The court also dismissed the significance of negative online comments presented by RCB and found no evidence that Uber's ad commercially exploited or diluted the RCB brand. 

Ultimately, the court concluded that RCB had not demonstrated irreparable harm or loss, and the balance of convenience favoured Uber.