Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 JULY 2025

Delhi High Court Defines Boundaries Between Trademark Rights And Satirical Expression In Advertisements

HSA Advocates
Explore more from HSA Advocates

In a recent decision at the intersection of trademark law, sports marketing, and creative advertising, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined whether a satirical advertisement referencing the Indian Premier League team Royal Challengers Bengaluru, …

IndiaIntellectual Property
Faranaaz Karbhari
Faranaaz Karbhari
Devam Singh
Devam Singh
Sharan Shetty
Sharan Shetty
Author LinkedIn connections

In a recent decision at the intersection of trademark law, sports marketing, and creative advertising, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined whether a satirical advertisement referencing the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Royal Challengers Bengaluru, (RCB) crossed the legal threshold into trademark infringement and brand disparagement. Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (the Plaintiff), which owns the RCB franchise, approached the Court alleging that the impugned advertisement aired by Uber India and others, misused its trademarks and tarnished the team's commercial image.

Background

On April 5, 2025, Uber India (Defendant No.1), its parent company Uber Technologies Inc. (Defendant No. 2), and an Australian cricketer (Defendant No.3) playing for another IPL team Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH), released an advertisement across various social media platforms. The ad featured the cricketer spray-painting "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" on a stadium wall, a twist on

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law
Article

Major Reform In Maharashtra: Sanad Requirement Removed For Land Conversion

The Government of Maharashtra has taken a significant step towards enhancing ease of doing business by rationalising the framework governing agricultural land conversion. As per the recent amendment to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), notified on 31 December 2025, and the Government Resolution dated 10 February 2026, the requirement of obtaining a separate sanad or non-agricultural permission from the Collector has been abolished for permissible non-agricultural uses under the Development Plan or Regional Plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP).
IndiaReal Estate and Construction
HSA Advocates
HSA Advocates
Article

From Permission To Approval: Decoding The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Amendment 2026

The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2026 (L. A. BILL No. XXVIII OF 2026) represents a significant reform in the regulation of government land transactions in Maharashtra. Introduced in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 24th March 2026, it focuses primarily on amending Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, a provision that governs the sale, transfer, redevelopment, use of additional Floor Space Index (“FSI”), transfer of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”), and change in use of government land.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
HSA Advocates
HSA Advocates
Article

More Than A Signature: Supreme Court Clarifies When Non-Signatories Can Be Bound By Arbitration

The Supreme Court, in KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1498, has reaffirmed an important principle governing the reference of disputes involving non-signatories to arbitration. The Hon’ble Court held that the absence of a signature on an arbitration agreement is not, by itself, determinative of whether a person can be bound by the arbitration agreement.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
HSA Advocates
HSA Advocates