Royal Challengers Bengaluru Sues Uber Over 'Disparaging' Ad Featuring Travis Head, Delhi HC Reserves Order On Interim Injunction Plea

IPL team Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) on Thursday filed a suit against Uber Moto before the Delhi High Court over allegedly disparaging YouTube advertisement featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad's cricketer Travis Head.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee reserved judgment on RCB's plea seeking interim injunction, after hearing both the sides at length.

”I am reserving order. I will pass the order and will dispose of the application,” the Court said.

The suit has been filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Uber Moto's YouTube ad titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head”. The 0.59 seconds video has 1.3 million views at present.

Appearing for RCB, Advocate Shwetasree Majumder took the court through the description of the advertisement and said that Travis Head, as a character in the video, disparages RCB's trademark.

She said that in the video, Head is seen running towards Bengaluru cricket stadium with an aim to vandalize the signage of “Bengaluru v. Hyderabad”, takes a spray paint and writes “Royally Challenged” Bengaluru in place of “Bengaluru” which disparages RCB's mark.

Majumder said that the moment a negative comment is made, there is disparagement. She further said that Uber Moto, being the commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad IPL team, while promoting its product (booking of bike), used RCB's trademark in the course of its trade, that too its “deceptive variant”, which was not permissible under law.

She said that the fan comments on the video leave no manner of doubt that Uber Moto was picking up at RCB and that it was a case of use of deceptively similar variant of RCB's trademark.

“You had millions of creative ways to do advertisement. Did you have to do it using my trademark? And using someone who was earlier with me? Does parity, fair use defence lies in the mouth of Uber Moto?” she said further.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Uber Moto submitted that there was a fundamental problem with the suit and that RCB has a “severely discounted” sense of humour of the public at larger.

He said that the general messaging of the advertisement in question is that on May 13, there is a match between RCB and Sunrisers Hyderabad at the Bengaluru cricket stadium and since it is a traffic jam city, public must use uber moto.

On this, Justice Banerjee told the counsel that two factors were weighing in his mind- one, Uber being a advertising partner of Sunrisers Hyderabad and two, Travis Head being the cricketer of that team.

Uber's counsel responded that in the ad, Head is not calling RCB as “baddies” and is only saying that he is going to give headache to the other side. The counsel added that the message of the advertisement is that RCB is going to be “royally challenged” in the match of May 13 and that the public should consider using Uber Moto.

“In the past, teams have challenged RCB and there have been media articles saying RCB has been royally challenged in the match,” he said.

Justice Banerjee orally remarked that he was not saying that the advertisement is bad per se but the forum on which the video is can be bad.

“This is open to interpretation. I am being open, the moment you ask a person, a layman or a Court to see the ad and decipher. I can form or have an opinion which is different than yours. There lies the issue of injunction,” the judge added.

To this, Uber's counsel responded that the case is covered by commercial free speech which cannot be injuncted. He called the suit “preposterous” and said that RCB should combat humour with humour and not with a lawsuit.

Majumder then responded that there was no problem in engaging in humour but the same cannot be done by Uber Moto in a way that it takes RCB's trademark, which is commercially valuable to the IPL team, and create a deceptive variant of the same and use it in a commercial manner.

Uber's counsel submitted that good humour, sense of fun and banter are intrinsic to advertising messaging and the said factors will be killed if such a standard, as mooted by RCB, is applied.

“If I am referring to RCB and that is the script of the ad, then i am entitled to refer to them so long as I do it without disparaging them or encashing on their reputation and there is no harm to their trademark,” the counsel added.

The Court reserved order on RCB's interim injunction application after hearing the parties.

Justice Banerjee said that since both the sides addressed substantial arguments and relied on case laws in support thereof, an order be passed in the interim injunction application and that there was no requirement of filing any response.

Title: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India & Ors.

Click here to read article