The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment in a trademark disparagement case filed by Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) against Uber Moto over a YouTube ad featuring Travis Head. The Court heard arguments on whether the ad harmed RCB's trademark and whether it was protected under commercial free speech.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited, representing the IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore, filed a suit against Uber Moto over its YouTube advertisement titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head.” The 59-second video, currently having 1.3 million views, depicts Travis Head running towards the Bengaluru cricket stadium with the intent of vandalising the signage. Instead of the original “Bengaluru v. Hyderabad,” the ad shows Head spray-painting the words “Royally Challenged Bengaluru,” which, according to RCB, constitutes disparagement of its trademark.
The ad was allegedly used to promote Uber Moto's services, targeting the traffic challenges in Bengaluru, particularly on the day of a match between RCB and Sunrisers Hyderabad. The crux of RCB’s complaint is that the advertisement, while promoting Uber's services, wrongly used the team's trademark in a manner that damages its reputation and commercial value.
Advocate Shwetasree Majumder, appearing for RCB, argued that the video’s content amounted to a disparaging remark against RCB’s trademark. She highlighted that the negative portrayal of the team, with Head’s spray-painting actions, cast RCB in a derogatory light, thereby tarnishing the value of its commercial mark. She also contended that Uber Moto, being a commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad, was wrongfully exploiting RCB’s trademark in a manner that was neither permissible nor fair under the law.
Majumder further pointed out that Uber Moto could have employed countless other creative methods for advertising without resorting to using RCB’s trademark in a deceptive and negative manner. In response, Uber Moto’s counsel argued that the advertisement was intended as a humorous take, reflecting the competition between the two teams and not intended to disparage RCB in any way. The counsel suggested that public interpretation of the ad was subjective and that the ad was a commercial expression of humour, protected under the principle of free speech.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee acknowledged the diverse arguments presented by both sides, noting two factors that played a significant role in the case Uber’s sponsorship of Sunrisers Hyderabad and Travis Head’s association with that team. The Court observed that the messaging in the advertisement could be interpreted in various ways, and there was a genuine concern as to whether the use of RCB’s trademark in this context could be seen as harmful or disparaging.
The Court also remarked that while the advertisement itself might not be inherently problematic, the way it was framed on a public platform could lead to varied interpretations. Justice Banerjee further noted the delicate balance between commercial speech and the protection of trademarks, with the question at hand being whether the advertisement undermined the value of RCB’s trademark or merely represented playful banter within the context of commercial advertising.
After extensive arguments from both parties, Justice Banerjee reserved the judgment on RCB’s plea for an interim injunction. The Court acknowledged the substantial legal arguments raised by both sides and indicated that the matter required careful consideration. The Court emphasised that no response from either party was needed at this stage, and a decision would be rendered shortly. The outcome of this case could significantly impact how commercial entities use trademarks in advertisements, especially when the usage involves competing brands in the realm of sports.
Picture Source :
