Wednesday, January 07, 2026 | 05:46 PM ISTहिंदी में पढें
Business Standard
Notification Icon
userprofile IconSearch

Delhi High Court dismisses RCB's plea against Uber ad with Travis Head

The Uber ad in question shows cricketer Travis Head spray-painting 'Royally Challenged' over 'Bengaluru' on a 'Bengaluru vs Hyderabad' display board inside a cricket stadium

Uber Ad with Travis Head

Uber Ad with Travis Head (Photo: Video screengrab/Uber)

Rahul Goreja New Delhi

Listen to This Article

The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to grant interim relief to Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) in its plea against an Uber Moto advertisement that allegedly disparaged the team.
 
Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed RCB’s plea seeking interim injunction stating the advertisement doesn’t warrant any interference at this stage, Live Law reported.
 
“The impugned advertisement is in the context of a game – 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 Delhi High Court said.
 

The ad in question

The contentious advertisement, titled ‘Baddies in Bengaluru’, features Australian cricketer and Sunrisers Hyderabad player Travis Head riding an Uber Moto bike taxi in Bengaluru. He is seen entering a cricket stadium that has a board reading ‘Bengaluru vs Hyderabad’, on which he spray-paints ‘Royally Challenged’ over ‘Bengaluru’.
 
 
RCB’s counsel advocate Shwetasree Majumder argued that the ad disparages the team’s mark and makes it a laughing stock. “You are using a deprecatory variant of my trademark,” Majumder said, as quoted by Bar and Bench. “Everyone in the fanbase understands that you are taking a dig at RCB. It basically tries to make me a laughing stock.”
 
“These are commercial enterprises…You’ve chosen to advertise by disparaging my mark,” she added.
 
Meanwhile, Uber’s counsel Saikrishna Rajagopal responded by saying, “The plaintiff has severely and massively discounted the sense of humour of the viewing public.” Hearing all arguments, the court declined to interfere, stating the ad did not warrant intervention at this stage.

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: May 05 2025 | 6:03 PM IST

Explore News