Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Razorpay in Ad Campaign Dispute Against PayU

In Razorpay Vs PayU, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Razorpay in its copyright and imitation dispute against rival fintech company PayU. The case concerns Razorpay’s claim that PayU’s recent founder-led campaign copied the style and execution of Razorpay’s IPL 2025 advertising campaign.

Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and declined to pass an immediate injunction against PayU at this stage. The Court has now listed the case for further hearing on March 30, while allowing the parties to complete their pleadings before the next date.

Razorpay argued that its campaign was not just based on the broad idea of featuring startup founders. It said the protected part was the specific way in which the campaign was expressed, including the visual style, sequencing, product placement, background setting and brand montage at the end.

According to Razorpay, its campaign presented 37 entrepreneurs in a stylised composite video format. It alleged that PayU’s campaign, which featured 36 founders, closely followed the same visual language and storytelling pattern. Senior Advocate Chander Lall, appearing for Razorpay, argued that PayU had copied this expression “almost to the teeth”.

Razorpay pointed to several similarities between the two campaigns. These included the way founders were seated, the use of a plain white background, similar framing of shots, and closing slides showing associated brands. It also referred to instances where the same founders allegedly appeared in both campaigns in nearly similar settings.

PayU opposed the plea and said the comparison made by Razorpay was unfair and incomplete. Senior Advocate Rajeev Mehra argued that Razorpay had relied on selected screenshots to create an impression of copying, instead of comparing the complete videos as a whole.

PayU further maintained that its content was not an advertisement campaign in the same sense as Razorpay’s IPL commercials. It described its work as part of a documentary-style series meant to showcase entrepreneurs across India. On that basis, it argued that the purpose, structure and execution of the two sets of videos were different.

The company also argued that Razorpay had compared a longer campaign video with short 15-second IPL advertisements. PayU said no one could claim monopoly over the general idea of featuring founders or startup journeys in a brand campaign.

After watching both sets of videos in court, the High Court said the first impression created by screenshots did not continue when the full videos were viewed. At a prima facie stage, the Court found that the campaigns appeared materially different in presentation, structure and messaging.

For that reason, the Court declined interim relief. It also noted that it would not be proper to reach final conclusions without full pleadings, especially when the content was already in the public domain. PayU has been given one week to file its reply, after which Razorpay may file a rejoinder.