Indospirit Beverages v. Ravi Mohan Studios: Use of “BROCODE” for Film Title restrained

Posted On - 27 November, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court’s BROCODE ruling grabbed attention for more than its legal precision. it spotlighted the clash between pop culture and trademark protection. In a bold interim order, the Court sided with Indospirit Beverages, holding that its iconic “BROCODE” brand wasn’t just a drink label but a cultural identity worth guarding. By restraining the film BRO CODE, the judgment draws a sharp line between creative freedom and commercial mimicry in India’s fast-evolving IP landscape.

Facts & Background:

The Plaintiff, Indospirit Beverages, launched its trademark “BROCODE” in 2015 for alcoholic beverages and holds multiple registrations across Classes 32, 33, and other categories, with formal assignment completed in 2018. Beyond its beverage line, the company expanded into digital media with content like the “BroCode Roast” YouTube series and the “BroCode: Onam Ulsavam Song” music video both strengthening the public association and cultural relevance of the mark.

The dispute arose when the Defendant, Ravi Mohan Studios, released a promo for its upcoming film titled “BRO CODE.” Despite meetings, emails, and a formal legal notice from the Plaintiff warning against unauthorized use, no license or agreement was granted. The Defendant, however, secured an interim order from the Madras High Court against alleged “groundless threats.” The Delhi High Court noted that under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such a proceeding becomes redundant once an infringement suit is filed, clearing the path for the current action to proceed on merits.

Key Issues Before the Court:

  1. Whether using the identical title “BRO CODE” for a film amounts to infringement and passing off against the registered mark “BROCODE”?
  2. Whether the absence of a Class 41 registration defeats the Plaintiff’s claim when confusion and association are likely?
  3. Effect of the Madras HC order on the Delhi HC’s power to grant injunction?

Court’s Reasoning, Findings and Held: Justice Tejas Karia held that Indospirit’s mark “BROCODE” enjoys strong distinctiveness and public association, and that using the identical title “BRO CODE” for a film amounts to trademark infringement and consumer confusion.

  • Goodwill and distinctiveness: The Plaintiff’s mark has sustained market presence and strong association with the Plaintiff’s goods and branded digital content.
  • Likelihood of confusion: Using “BRO CODE” as a film title is identical in idea and near identical visually and phonetically to “BROCODE,” likely to suggest association, sponsorship or licensing by the Plaintiff.
  • Class argument rejected at this stage: Even if Class 41 registration is pending, protection can extend across dissimilar goods or services when reputation is shown and confusion is probable.
  • Madras HC order: By operation of Section 142(2) Trade Marks Act, the groundless threats action ceases upon filing of the infringement suit; it does not bar relief here.
  • Prima facie case, balance, irreparable harm: Made out in Plaintiff’s favour; film not yet released, hence risk of erosion of goodwill is high.
  • Held (ad-interim): Defendant, its officers and agents are restrained from using, adopting, reproducing, promoting or displaying the mark “BROCODE” or any identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to the film, trailer, teaser, posters, social media, or any related content. The Defendant may continue making the film provided the restrained title or confusingly similar marks are not used. Matter listed on 23.12.2025; replies and rejoinders directed.

Conclusion:

The order highlights that well known or highly associated marks can be protected beyond their original class when identical use risks misassociation. Titles of cinematographic works are not immune where they trade on existing goodwill. The Court’s narrow but firm injunction preserves the Plaintiff’s brand equity while allowing the film to proceed under a non infringing title.

Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt. Ltd CS(COMM) 1104/2025