Delhi High Court Uber case

Trending Today RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Upholds Validity of IPC Section 498A, Rejects Misuse Claims Under Article 14 Supreme Court Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Kerala High Court Declares GST on Club Services to Members Unconstitutional: Major Relief for Associations Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained A Creative’s Guide to Intellectual Property: Protecting and Profiting from Your Work RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad MAHI SINHA 18 Apr 2025 RCB vs Uber: Delhi High Court Case Over Alleged Trademark Defamation in YouTube Ad RCB has filed a trademark defamation case against Uber in the Delhi High Court over its viral “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head” ad. Learn why RCB claims the ad damages its brand and how Uber is defending its creative freedom. Background: RCB Files Lawsuit Against Uber Over YouTube Ad In a high-profile legal dispute, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has taken Uber to the Delhi High Court over a YouTube advertisement titled “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head.” According to RCB, the ad allegedly defamed the franchise’s trademark and portrayed the team in a derogatory manner. The Indian Premier League (IPL) team filed for an interim injunction—a court order to restrain Uber from airing the ad—but the High Court has withheld its decision for now. What Sparked the Controversy? The ad in question features Travis Head, a Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) batter and former RCB player, pulling pranks ahead of an IPL match between Bengaluru and Hyderabad. In the video, Travis—nicknamed the “Hyderabaddie”—is shown wearing flashy gold chains and white attire while entering the stadium with his “gang.” What triggered the legal battle was the visible alteration of match signage that originally read “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad,” defaced to read “Royally Challenged Bengaluru vs Hyderabad.” RCB claims this directly mocks their trademarked name, “Royal Challengers Bengaluru,” and affects the team’s public image. RCB’s Legal Stand Representing RCB, advocate Shwetasree Majumder argued that the term “Royally Challenged” was a mockery of the team’s trademark and that Uber—being a commercial sponsor of SRH—had no legal right to use or parody RCB’s brand identity. Majumder stated: “There were countless inventive ways to create an ad. Was it necessary to use our trademark and a former player to target us?” She emphasized that public comments under the video make it clear the ad was perceived as disparaging RCB, not just a creative take. Uber’s Defense: It’s Just a Joke Uber, on the other hand, dismissed the lawsuit as preposterous, claiming that the advertisement is protected under the right to commercial free speech. According to Uber’s legal counsel: “The term ‘Royally Challenged’ has been used before in media commentary, and Travis Head wasn’t mocking the team but rather hyping up the upcoming match.” Uber also emphasized that the use of satire and humor is well within the bounds of creative advertising and does not constitute trademark infringement. What’s at Stake for Both Sides?   For RCB: Protection of brand integrity Preventing misleading associations with rival franchises Addressing public perception in a high-visibility tournament like the IPL For Uber: Upholding creative freedom in advertising Defending the legitimacy of satire and parody in sports marketing Avoiding a legal precedent that restricts promotional creativity With the ad surpassing 54 million views on Instagram alone, the case has gained massive attention from fans, media, and legal experts alike. Conclusion: Satire or Trademark Violation? This case raises important questions around trademark usage, advertising freedom, and the fine line between satire and defamation in the world of sports marketing. While the Delhi High Court has yet to make a final ruling, the outcome could set a crucial precedent for how brands interact with sports franchises in promotional content moving forward. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sanoj kumar paul. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad Sanoj kumar paul • April 18, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »