Razorpay has sued rival fintech firm PayU before the Delhi High Court alleging that PayU’s advertising campaign featuring certain startup founders was a copy of Razorpay’s IPL 2025 founders campaign [Razorpay Vs PayU]..Justice Jyoti Singh on Thursday declined to grant immediate interim relief in the matter and listed it for further hearing on March 30. .Razorpay claimed that its campaign, which showcased 37 entrepreneurs through a stylised composite video format, has been imitated by PayU through a similar campaign featuring 36 founders with comparable sequencing, visual treatment and storytelling structure..Appearing for Razorpay, Senior Advocate Chander Lall argued that while the idea of interviewing entrepreneurs may be common, the specific manner of expression adopted by Razorpay, including the uniform visual setup, curated backgrounds, positioning of founders alongside their products, and the sequencing of introductions and closing brand montages, constitutes protectable artistic and cinematographic work..It was contended that PayU had copied this expression “almost to the teeth”.The plea highlighted the similarities in how founders were seated, the minimalistic white background, the framing of shots and the final slides showcasing associated brands. Razorpay emphasised that the infringement lay not in the concept, but in the distinctive execution and presentation format of its campaign..Razorpay also relied on specific instances where the same founders allegedly appeared in both campaigns in similar settings..Senior Advocate Rajeev Mehra, appearing for PayU, disputed the allegations and argued that Razorpay’s case was based on a misleading comparison of selective screenshots rather than the complete videos. It contended that in cases involving cinematographic works, the comparison must be of the entire film, not isolated frames..PayU further argued that its content was not an advertisement campaign but part of a documentary-style series, created to showcase entrepreneurs across India, and therefore fundamentally different in purpose and execution. It also submitted that Razorpay had relied on a longer campaign video whereas the actual IPL advertisements were short 15-second clips, and that the broader idea of featuring founders cannot be monopolised..After viewing both sets of videos in court, the Bench indicated that the initial impression created by screenshots did not hold when the full content was examined. At a prima facie level, the Court found that the two campaigns appeared materially different in terms of presentation, structure and messaging.In light of this, the Court declined to grant any interim injunction against PayU. It observed that it would be inappropriate to arrive at definitive conclusions without complete pleadings and noted that the content in question was already in the public domain..The Court granted PayU one week to file its reply with Razorpay permitted to file a rejoinder after that. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 30.
