In India, humour, parody, and satire have always been a big part of public conversations. They are great for challenging societal and political norms and speaking out against institutions, politics, and even big companies. In the context of parody and satire by stand-up comedians, in the case of Ashutosh Dubey Vs. Netflix Inc and Others¹ the Delhi High Court noted that “the very essence of democracy is that a creative artist is given the liberty to project the picture of the society in a manner he perceives. One of the prime forms of exposing the ills of the society is by portraying a satirical picture of the same. Stand-up comedians perform that very purpose. In their portrayal they use satire and exaggerate the ills to an extent that it becomes a ridicule. In the humorous portrayal of the ills of the society the stand-up comedians use satire.” But when parody involves a well-known brand, the fun can quickly turn into a legal issue. The question often asked is can one make fun of brands and get away with it? The answer is obviously not straightforward and is dependent on the context in which the brand is used.

The trademark laws protect the commercial interests of brand owners and protect consumers from any confusion or misleading claim. Companies invest their time, effort, and resources into creating brands in order to create consumer association and maintain their exclusivity. Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act) allows brand owners to protect their registered mark from unauthorized use, and its unauthorized use without due cause and in the course of trade. The Act also provides some exceptions to use of a registered mark, like comparative advertising and honest concurrent use. Although “fair use” is not directly mentioned, the Act protects unauthorized use of a mark that follows honest practices in commerce and does not take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character of a mark harm the mark’s reputation or take unfair advantage.

Legal Precedents in India

One of the most notable cases about trademark parody is Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International and Ors. Greenpeace made a Pac-Man style video game called “Turtle vs TATA,” where players helped a turtle eat as many white dots as possible while dodging the “TATA demons” shown by TATA’s iconic “T” logo to highlight environmental disregard by TATA group. TATA claimed that using their “T” logo without permission was libelous and disparaging. Greenpeace argued that the game was meant to highlight the negative impact of TATA’s upcoming port on the breeding of endangered Olive Ridley Turtles. The High Court of Delhi refused the interim injunction, emphasizing the value of free speech, which includes caricature, parody, etc., and its impact on public debate, especially on important issues. The court also noted that for the audience to get the humour, the parody must take enough from the original trademark. However, if there is too much copying from the trademark, it will be considered unlawful, even if it is funny.

While the Greenpeace case was about raising awareness on an environmental issue, the Pepsi Co., Inc. and Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Anr. case was purely commercial. Pepsi took its rival, Coca Cola, to court for trademark and copyright infringement over a parody ad with the tagline “Yeh Dil Maange No More” (a cheeky take on Pepsi’s iconic tagline “Yeh Dil Maange More”). The High Delhi Court refused to grant an interim injunction since Coca Cola did not use the tagline on their own products. The court also observed that the audience would clearly see the ad as mocking or parody, so it would not amount to infringement

Royal Challengers v Uber: fair use or parody

A recent case that attracted considerable media attention was a trademark disparagement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCB) against Uber India Systems Private Limited².

In April 2025, Uber posted an advertisement on its social media platforms that formed the crux of the dispute between the parties. Uber’s advertisement showed the famous Australian cricketer Travis Head, who plays for the Indian Premier League team Sunrisers Hyderabad, going into a stadium in Bengaluru, the hometown of RCB, and changing the name “Royal Challengers Bengaluru” to “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” with spray paint. The advertisement then showed Head getting on an Uber motorbike, which arrived within the promised three minutes, and escaping the premises.

RCB claimed that the change of the name of its cricket team to “Royally Challenged Bengaluru” violated its rights in the trademark ‘Royal Challengers Bengaluru’ by disparaging and infringing its trademark and diluting the same.

Uber rebutted the claims by asserting that the advertisement was a comedic tease/parody and promoted light-hearted banter, and that the focus of the advertisement was to show that the motorbike ride booked through Uber reached its destination within the time shown on the Uber app. Uber also argued that the culture surrounding cricket is ripe with such thematic humour, the same is appreciated by the fans, and there was no scope of confusion, infringement, or dilution, since the parties were engaged in completely different industries.

After hearing both sides and analysing the judicial precedents relied on, the court passed an order discussing the aspects of disparagement and infringement of RCB’s trademark.

Firstly, the court held that to prove disparagement, it must be shown that the advertisement intended to demean, denigrate, or defame the RCB marks with a view to cause injury or harm. The court opined that the intent of the advertisement was to show that the services provided by Uber are fast, reliable, and arrive in a timely fashion. The court also noted that Head is not wearing the jersey of his team in the advertisement; no reference to Sunrisers Hyderabad is made; there was no comparison of the teams, their players, or statistics; and nothing in the advertisement denoted commercial exploitation or denigration of RCB’s trademarks by Uber. Therefore, it fell within the ambit of fair use.

Secondly, the court held that the provision of law governing infringement by entities operating in different fields had not been satisfied, and it did not find the advertisement infringing the trademark rights of RCB.

The judgment weaves together principles of free speech granted by the Constitution of India with those governing disparagement and trademark infringement to arrive at a cohesive ruling.

Trademark Parody across borders

While Indian trademark law does not explicitly recognise trademark parody, the United States of America provides one of the most sophisticated legal frameworks regarding trademark parody. Under the Lanham Act³, parody serves as a legal defense, if it is used non-commercially and conveys mock endorsement or sponsorship. Courts in USA often tend to favour expressive parody when there is no issue of consumer confusion.

One such landmark case is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC⁴ where Haute Diggity Dog, LLC created parody pet toys such as “Chewy Vuiton.” The court ruled in their favour on the ground that the satire was obvious, and it would not mislead consumers. This provided further support that parody can fall under fair use, as long as it is clear and not misleading.

However, recently the Supreme Court of USA has clarified the limitations of parody as a defense in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC⁵. VIP Products sold a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels,” mimicking the iconic Jack Daniel’s bottle with humorous references like “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” Jack Daniel’s argued this use infringed its trademark and harmed its brand image. The court unanimously ruled in favour of Jack Daniel’s, holding that when a parody functions as a source identifier for the defendant’s product, especially in a commercial context, the standard likelihood of confusion test must apply. Thus, parody does not offer blanket protection and may not shield defendants from liability when the parody itself is used to market goods.

The European Union, on the other hand, is more conservative and fragmented in its approach. Although parody does exist under copyright law through Article 5(3)(k) of the EU Copyright Directive, there is no such defense under the trademark law. Therefore, parody cases are assessed case by case. Courts factor in considerations such as brand dilution, unjust enrichment, and harm to reputation, which exposes creators to the uncertainty of navigating a legal twilight zone.

Challenges in protecting free speech and trademarks

Trademark parody is a contentious legal area where intellectual property protection and free speech preservation clash. Brand owners see parody as a threat that can dilute trademarks, confuse consumers, or damage reputations, especially in the digital age. Conversely, comedians and artists view parody as a powerful critique tool. A significant challenge is determining intent and public perception. Courts must decide if the parody is genuine humour and criticism or unfair competition. They should also consider if monetized parody loses its protection status.

Trademark parody issues are not just legal but also cultural, technological and economic. A balanced, context-dependent solution is needed to respect trademark holders’ rights while safeguarding free speech. Until then, creators will continue to navigate a legal tightrope, balancing humour against the risk of lawsuits.