Delhi HC Junks RCB’s Plea Against Uber Ad

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by Royal Challengers Bengaluru, seeking an interim injunction against an advertisement of Uber Moto that was claimed to be disparaging to the RCB.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected RCB’s plea for an interim injunction, ruling that the advertisement is in the context of a game of cricket and must be viewed in the spirit of sportsmanship, a Mint report said.

“The impugned advertisement is in the context of a game of cricket, a game of sportsmanship, which, in the opinion of this court, does not call for any interference of any sort at this stage,” the report said, citing the court hearing.

“Interference by this court at this stage would tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. No order as to costs,” the court further held.

As per a Bar and Bench report, Justice Banerjee stressed that disparagement must involve demeaning, ridiculing, or defamatory content with an intent to cause harm, where the court confirmed that Uber’s ad lacked such elements.

“There is no element of demeaning, criticism, ridiculing or falsity… There are no acts of disparagement by the defendants,” the judgment said.

Why RCB Sued Uber Moto?

RCB moved the Delhi HC against Uber Moto, a few weeks ago, alleging that the ride hailing platform, a commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH), used the formers’ trademark for commercial gain without consent.

The ad featured team SRH player Travis Head, who was a former RCB team member, vandalising signage by altering “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad” to “Royally Challenged Bengaluru vs Hyderabad” using spray paint.

RCB took particular offence to the phrase “Royally Challenged,” to which Uber Moto’s legal counsel argued that the advertisement is satirical and playful in nature, and falls within the permissible limits of commercial free speech.

Recent Ad War Between Brands

The development comes in the light of another recent instance, where Mamaearth parent Honasa Consumer sued Minimalist owner Hindustan Unilever (HUL) in April, over a Lakme advertisement, on claims of “disparaging” and “misleading”.

The lawsuit was filed before the Delhi High Court, where Honasa alleged that Lakme’s last campaign titled “SPF Lie Detector Test” unfairly undermines competing products, including one that closely resembles a sunscreen from The Derma Co.

Following which, HUL agreed to withdraw its sunscreen advertisement campaign and make changes to the existing one, by changing the colour of the product in the ad from orange (which resembled The Derma Co’s packaging) to yellow, avoiding any references that could be seen as disparaging The Derma Co.