RCB Approaches Delhi High Court Against Uber Over Advertisement Featuring Travis Head

Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has approached the Delhi High Court against Uber, seeking a restraining order over an advertisement featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) cricketer Travis Head. The advertisement, titled "Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head," shows the Australian cricketer pulling pranks on rival teams. RCB claims the ad disparages its trademark by using a reference to "Royally Challenged Bengaluru." In the ad, Head, referred to as 'Hyderabaddie,' is seen sneaking into a stadium ahead of an IPL match between Bengaluru and Hyderabad. He and his group are shown vandalizing the signage, replacing "Bengaluru vs Hyderabad" with "Royally Challenged Bengaluru vs Hyderabad."

The Hyderabaddie is on a wicked mission. First stop, Bengaluru!😈

Catch him before he escapes on Uber Moto. Or book your own, and get a ride in just 3 minutes! 🏍️#UberMoto#TravisHead#Hyderabad#RideWithUber#Cricket#3Minutespic.twitter.com/3dtbkyTvXO

— Uber India (@Uber_India) April 5, 2025

Advocate Shwetasree Majumder, representing RCB, told the court that Head’s character is shown running toward the Chinnaswamy Stadium and spray-painting the words “Royally Challenged” over signage that originally read “Bengaluru vs Hyderabad.” Majumder argued that this act amounts to trademark disparagement. She further claimed that Uber Moto, as a commercial sponsor of the SunRisers Hyderabad team, had no right to use RCB’s name or a modified version of its slogan in the advertisement. According to her, the act damages the franchise’s brand image.

In response, Uber’s legal counsel denied the allegations. The lawyer said the advertisement does not label RCB as “baddies” but merely suggests that Travis Head could be a tough opponent. He said the phrase “royally challenged” was used in the context of a match challenge and not as an insult.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court heard the arguments and stated that the interpretation of the ad is subjective. “This is open to interpretation. The moment you ask a person, a layman or a court to see the ad and decipher, I can form or have an opinion which is different than yours. There lies the issue of injunction,” he said, according to Live Law.

The court has reserved its order and will pass a final decision on the application seeking an interim injunction.

The video has gained significant attention, with over 1.3 million views on YouTube.