A legal tussle has erupted between Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Uber India over a recent advertisement featuring Travis Head, the Australian cricketer currently playing for Sunrisers Hyderabad in IPL 2025. The ad allegedly mocks the Bengaluru-based IPL franchise, which has prompted RCB to file a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court.
What’s the Controversy?
In the Uber ad, Travis Head appears in a comic setup where RCB is indirectly referred to as “Royally Challenged Bengaluru”—a play on words that RCB claims is damaging to their brand and trademark.
RCB’s Main Objections:
- Trademark Violation: The term “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” is seen as a deliberate distortion of their official name, directly impacting the franchise’s brand image.
- Slogan Mockery: RCB also claims their iconic slogan "Ee Saala Cup Namde" (This year, the cup is ours) was parodied in the ad, which the team says is deeply emotional for fans and players alike.
- Emotional and Commercial Damage: RCB argues that mocking their legacy and fan sentiment for humor amounts to trademark disparagement and hurts both their emotional and commercial interests.
What Happens Next?
- The Delhi High Court has received RCB’s plea, and Uber India is expected to respond soon.
- Depending on the court’s view, Uber could be asked to take down the ad, issue a public apology, or even face a financial penalty if found guilty of violating advertising and IP laws.
Legal Perspective:
Under trademark laws and advertising ethics, any ad that disparages a competing or non-competing brand—especially with altered or mocking versions of its name and slogan—can be considered defamatory or misleading, particularly if it causes public confusion or harms brand reputation.
The Bigger Picture:
This controversy has added unexpected drama to the IPL 2025 season. While RCB is performing well on the field, this off-field battle could turn into a precedent-setting case for how sports teams are portrayed in commercial media.
All eyes are now on:
- Uber India’s official response
- The court's stance on parody vs. trademark respect
