The Delhi High Court has ruled that an Uber Moto advertisement featuring IPL team Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) member Travis Head does not affect the Royal Challengers Bengaluru ( RCB ). After dismissing a plea by RCB against the YouTube advertisement, the court reportedly noted that no prima facie case of disparagement or trademark infringement was established. It also said that the advertisement creates a general perception of healthy banter and lighthearted humour, the report claims. While refusing the plea, the high court found that “no element of demeaning/ criticism/ condemning/ ridiculing/ defaming/ mocking or falsity” aimed at harming the RCB trademark or team. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who dismissed the application filed by RCB, stated that the matter does not require any intervention at this stage.
“All throughout the impugned advertisement, there is no (in)direct imputation/ insinuation/ comparison/ exaggeration/ sensationalism/ distortion of matters of fact of any kind by any of the defendants against the RCB trademark/ RCB cricket team,” the court said in its 35-page order (as seen by the news agency PTI).
Why RCB filed a lawsuit against Uber Moto ad featuring SRH’s Travis Head
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited sued Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd, alleging that Uber Moto’s YouTube ad “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head” disparages its trademark.
In its interim ruling on RCB’s request for relief, the court held that at this stage the advertisement cannot be deemed false or misleading and that withholding a temporary injunction would not cause the plaintiff irreparable harm, loss, or injury.
“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 interference of any sort at this stage, especially while this court is considering the present application...More so, since in a case like the present one, interference by this court, at this stage, would tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling,” Justice Banerjee said.
The court concluded the ad contains no elements likely to influence or provoke the general public or fans of RCB or SRH.
“There can be no one-sided impression or one-sided version of the impugned advertisement, particularly, since what according to the plaintiff is 'right' can according to the defendants be 'wrong', and vice versa. The act(s) of disparagement cannot be concluded on the basis of the reviews/ comments/ statements made by few viewers/ followers as there are always two sides of a coin. In any event, the same cannot form or be the benchmark for determining the act of disparagement and/ or infringement... This is not a telltale,” the court noted.
RCB’s lawyer argued the ad shows a cricketer spray-painting “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” over “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad,” disparaging their trademark and using a “deceptive variant” during Uber Moto’s IPL sponsorship.
Uber’s counsel countered that good-natured humour and banter are vital to advertising and that RCB’s proposed standard would suppress them. The video had already received over 2 million views and numerous user comments.
“All throughout the impugned advertisement, there is no (in)direct imputation/ insinuation/ comparison/ exaggeration/ sensationalism/ distortion of matters of fact of any kind by any of the defendants against the RCB trademark/ RCB cricket team,” the court said in its 35-page order (as seen by the news agency PTI).
Why RCB filed a lawsuit against Uber Moto ad featuring SRH’s Travis Head
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited sued Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd, alleging that Uber Moto’s YouTube ad “Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head” disparages its trademark.
In its interim ruling on RCB’s request for relief, the court held that at this stage the advertisement cannot be deemed false or misleading and that withholding a temporary injunction would not cause the plaintiff irreparable harm, loss, or injury.
“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 interference of any sort at this stage, especially while this court is considering the present application...More so, since in a case like the present one, interference by this court, at this stage, would tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling,” Justice Banerjee said.
The court concluded the ad contains no elements likely to influence or provoke the general public or fans of RCB or SRH.
“There can be no one-sided impression or one-sided version of the impugned advertisement, particularly, since what according to the plaintiff is 'right' can according to the defendants be 'wrong', and vice versa. The act(s) of disparagement cannot be concluded on the basis of the reviews/ comments/ statements made by few viewers/ followers as there are always two sides of a coin. In any event, the same cannot form or be the benchmark for determining the act of disparagement and/ or infringement... This is not a telltale,” the court noted.
RCB’s lawyer argued the ad shows a cricketer spray-painting “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” over “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad,” disparaging their trademark and using a “deceptive variant” during Uber Moto’s IPL sponsorship.
Uber’s counsel countered that good-natured humour and banter are vital to advertising and that RCB’s proposed standard would suppress them. The video had already received over 2 million views and numerous user comments.
You may also like
US court blocks Donald Trump's bid to end legal status for 400,000 migrants
'Parents really worried': New Zealand PM introduces draft laws to ban users under 16 from social media
Car smashes into Jennifer Aniston's Bel Air mansion with intruder 'held at gunpoint'
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's Jagannath Temple Inauguration In Digha Is Just A Poll Ploy
UNSC holds closed consultations on Indo-Pak tensions, hears calls for 'restraint'
