New Delhi: A branding and copyright dispute between two major fintech players has reached the Delhi High Court, with Razorpay accusing rival PayU of copying the creative expression, visual grammar and storytelling format of its founders-led IPL 2025 campaign.
At the centre of the dispute is Razorpay’s claim that PayU’s campaign featuring startup founders mirrors its own campaign in a way that goes beyond inspiration and enters the territory of actionable imitation. Razorpay has argued that while the broad idea of featuring entrepreneurs in a campaign may not be exclusive, the specific way its campaign was conceived, shot and presented constitutes protectable artistic and cinematographic work.
According to Razorpay, its original campaign featured 37 entrepreneurs in a stylised composite video format built around a distinct and consistent visual treatment. The company has alleged that PayU’s rival campaign, which featured 36 founders, adopted a highly similar format with comparable sequencing, visual composition and storytelling structure.
Razorpay’s case is rooted in the argument that copyright does not lie in the generic concept of interviewing founders, but in the particular expression of that idea. Through counsel, the company pointed to a set of recurring similarities that it believes form the core of the alleged imitation — including the uniform visual setup, minimal white background, curated backgrounds, founder positioning alongside products, framing of shots, sequencing of introductions and the closing montages featuring associated brands.
The fintech company contended that these were not incidental overlaps but part of a distinctive campaign architecture that gave its founders-led communication a recognisable identity. It argued that PayU had reproduced this expression “almost to the teeth”, making the dispute less about thematic resemblance and more about duplication of execution.
Razorpay also highlighted specific examples where the same founders allegedly appeared in both campaigns in similar-looking settings, using these parallels to strengthen its claim that the rival campaign had borrowed not merely an approach, but a recognisable format and aesthetic.
PayU, however, has strongly contested the allegations and rejected the suggestion that its campaign was a copy. It argued that Razorpay’s comparison was selective and built largely around screenshots that exaggerated similarities while ignoring the content as a whole. According to PayU, any meaningful copyright analysis in relation to cinematographic works must be based on the complete video and not isolated frames.
PayU further maintained that its content was fundamentally different in intent and execution. Rather than a conventional advertising campaign, it described its work as part of a documentary-style series designed to spotlight entrepreneurs across India. On that basis, the company argued that the tone, objective and treatment of its content were materially different from Razorpay’s founders-led communication.
Another key plank of PayU’s defence was that Razorpay could not claim a monopoly over the larger idea of showcasing founders in branded storytelling. It also pointed out that Razorpay had relied on a longer campaign video in making its case, whereas the actual IPL-linked advertisements were short 15-second films, suggesting that the comparison itself was not being made on an equivalent basis.
The dispute is likely to draw wider interest in the advertising and marketing industry because it touches on a question that is becoming increasingly relevant in brand communication: when multiple brands use similar storytelling devices — such as founder narratives, minimalist sets and documentary-style framing — what exactly qualifies as original expression, and where does similarity become infringement?
As branded content evolves, particularly in categories like fintech and startups where founder-led authenticity is a recurring communication device, disputes of this kind could shape how courts and companies think about creative ownership, format protection and the legal limits of competitive imitation.
When the matter came up before Justice Jyoti Singh, the Delhi High Court viewed both sets of videos in court. After examining the full content, the Bench indicated that the impression created by selective screenshots did not appear to hold to the same extent when the complete videos were seen. At a prima facie stage, the Court found that the two campaigns appeared materially different in terms of presentation, structure and messaging.
In light of that initial view, the Court declined to grant immediate interim relief to Razorpay. It observed that it would not be appropriate to arrive at any definitive conclusion without complete pleadings, especially since the content in question was already in the public domain. The Court has granted one week to PayU to file its reply, with Razorpay permitted to file a rejoinder thereafter. The matter is now listed for further hearing on March 30.
