Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) has sued Uber in the Delhi High Court over a contentious ad. The ad includes cricketer Travis Head, who is playing for Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) now but was with RCB during the 2016-2017 season. The contention arises out of Uber’s adoption of RCB’s well-known slogan “Ee Sala Cup Namde” (This year, the cup is ours) without a license.
Why is RCB Angry?
RCB contends that Uber misused their famous slogan and name without permission in the ad named ‘Baddies in Bengaluru.’ The ad features Travis Head, also known as ‘Hyderabaddie,’ entering a stadium in disguise with someone else and spray-painting a lighthearted message that reads, “Royally Challenged Bengaluru vs Hyderabad” rather than the conventional “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 #3Minutes pic.twitter.com/3dtbkyTvXO
— Uber India (@Uber_India) April 5, 2025
The players are dissatisfied with the manner the ad uses their name and tagline. They argue that Uber’s video, which has exceeded 1.3 million hits on YouTube, is injurious to RCB’s brand and insulting to their trademark.
Uber’s Defense
Uber, however, feels that the lawsuit is frivolous and asserts that the ad was intended to be humorous. Their attorneys contend that the video mocks Bengaluru’s infamous traffic and showcases Uber Moto as a quicker mode of transportation. Uber also asserts that they didn’t utilize RCB’s trademark directly but devised a light-hearted context to display SRH’s potential threat to RCB in their next match.
“RCB has severely underestimated the Indian public’s sense of humour,” Uber’s attorney said, calling the lawsuit “preposterous” and asserting the ad was a benign effort at creativity.
Legal Case of RCB
Conversely, RCB’s lawyers do not concur, emphasizing that the essence of the matter is Uber’s exploitation of another’s brand without permission. They contend that using a variant of RCB’s trademark was a way for Uber to promote its service at the expense of the team’s hard-gained reputation and reap profits from it.
The Delhi High Court has listened to arguments from both sides but has not yet given a final judgment. It is to be seen whether the court will decide in favor of RCB or whether the company will have to accept the light-hearted ad as part of the advertising scene in today’s times.
