Razorpay sued PayU in Delhi High Court alleging its IPL 2025 founders campaign was copied; Justice Jyoti Singh denied interim relief and adjourned hearing to March 30, after examining similarities in ads.
NEW DELHI: Razorpay has filed a suit against rival fintech PayU in the Delhi High Court, alleging that PayU’s advertising campaign featuring certain startup founders copied Razorpay’s IPL 2025 founders campaign.
Justice Jyoti Singh on Thursday refused to grant immediate interim relief and adjourned the matter for further hearing on March 30.
Razorpay’s claim is that its campaign which presented 37 entrepreneurs in a stylised composite video was replicated by PayU in a similar campaign featuring 36 founders, with comparable sequencing, visual treatment and narrative structure.
ALSO READ: Trademark Infringement | Delhi HC Restrains ‘PhonePey Loan’ Usage in ‘PhonePe’
Senior Advocate Chander Lall, for Razorpay, accepted that interviewing entrepreneurs may be a common idea but argued that Razorpay’s particular mode of expression the uniform visual setup, curated backdrops, positioning of founders with their products, and the sequence of introductions leading into closing brand montages amounts to protectable artistic and cinematographic expression.
It was alleged that PayU had copied this expression “almost to the teeth”.
The petition pointed to similarities such as how founders were seated, the minimalist white background, shot framing and the final slides showcasing associated brands, stressing that the alleged infringement was not of the concept but of Razorpay’s distinctive execution and presentation format.
Razorpay also drew attention to instances where the same founders allegedly appeared in both campaigns in similar settings.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Mehra, for PayU, denied the charges and argued that Razorpay relied on a selective and misleading comparison of screenshots rather than comparing complete videos. He asserted that, for cinematographic works, the proper comparison is of the entire film, not isolated frames.
PayU maintained that its content is part of a documentary-style series aimed at profiling entrepreneurs across India rather than a direct advertising campaign, and therefore differs in purpose and execution. It also pointed out that Razorpay relied on a longer campaign video while the actual IPL ads were 15-second spots, and that the general idea of featuring founders cannot be monopolised.
After watching both sets of videos in court, the Bench indicated that the impression created by screenshots did not hold up when the full material was seen. At a prima facie level, the court found the two campaigns to be materially different in presentation, structure and messaging.
Accordingly, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction against PayU, noting that it would be improper to reach final conclusions without complete pleadings and observing that the material is already in the public domain.
The Court gave PayU one week to file its reply, with Razorpay allowed to file a rejoinder thereafter. The matter will be taken up again on March 30.
Case Title: Razorpay Vs PayU.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
