Delhi High Court Halts Use of "BRO CODE" Mark for Film Title in Trademark Dispute

New Delhi – In a significant ruling on the expansive reach of trademark protection, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Ravi Mohan Studios from using the "BRO CODE" mark for its upcoming film. The decision, delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, underscores the court's willingness to protect established brand goodwill against potential dilution, even across different classes of goods and services.

The order was passed in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indospirit Beverages, the manufacturer of the popular carbonated wine beverage "BROCODE." The Court found a prima facie case that the film production house's use of an identical mark for its movie title would likely cause consumer confusion and inflict irreparable harm on the goodwill Indospirit has cultivated since 2015.

Background of the Dispute

Indospirit Beverages launched its "BROCODE" beverage in 2015 and has since established a significant market presence. The company holds registered trademarks for the brand in Class 32 (non-alcoholic beverages) and Class 33 (alcoholic beverages).

Represented by Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, briefed by a team from Khaitan & Co., Indospirit argued that its brand-building efforts extended beyond the beverage itself. The company contended that "BROCODE" had evolved into a "widely recognized cultural identifier" through extensive marketing campaigns. Crucially, Indospirit demonstrated its expansion into the entertainment sphere, citing the launch of a YouTube series, "BroCode Roast," which amassed over 200 million views, and a music video titled "BroCode: Onam Ulsavam Song." These ventures, Indospirit argued, solidified its association with entertainment content, thereby strengthening its claim against the film's title.

The conflict arose in September 2025, when Indospirit discovered promotional materials for a film titled "BRO CODE" produced by Ravi Mohan Studios. Despite attempts at resolution and a cease-and-desist notice, the studio proceeded with its promotional activities, prompting Indospirit to seek an injunction.

The Court’s Prima Facie Findings

Justice Tejas Karia’s October 14 order found that Indospirit had successfully established a prima facie case for an injunction. The Court was persuaded that the unauthorized use of an identical mark for a film could lead to confusion and misassociation.

“A prima facie case is made out by the Plaintiff (Indospirit) that the Plaintiff’s Mark has been used in an identical manner in the title of the Defendant’s (Ravi Mohan Studios) film without any authorization… which amounts to infringement and is also likely to create confusion in the minds of consumers… likely to cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiff,” the Court observed.

This finding highlights a key principle in modern trademark law: the protection of a mark is not rigidly confined to its registered class. When a brand has achieved significant recognition and has organically expanded its presence into related fields, courts may extend protection to prevent others from capitalizing on that established reputation. The High Court specifically noted that Indospirit’s BROCODE mark has a “strong and exclusive association” with the company, making the film's identical title particularly problematic.

A Tale of Two High Courts: Groundless Threats vs. Infringement

The defense presented by Ravi Mohan Studios introduced a complex procedural wrinkle. Their counsel argued that Indospirit lacked a registered trademark in Class 41 (which covers entertainment services) and that its pending application for "BROCODE ROAST" did not confer any enforceable rights.

More pointedly, the studio relied on a pre-emptive interim injunction it had secured from the Madras High Court on October 3, 2025. That order restrained Indospirit from issuing "groundless threats" of legal action over the alleged trademark infringement. This strategy aimed to use one court's order to shield them from an infringement suit in another.

However, Justice Karia decisively dismantled this defense by invoking Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision effectively states that an action for groundless threats becomes untenable once the trademark holder files a suit for infringement. The Court ruled that the filing of the infringement suit in Delhi nullified the basis of the Madras High Court's interim order regarding threats.

"Justice Karia rejected that contention, holding that under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, an action for groundless threats ceases once a suit for trademark infringement is filed," the order clarified.

This aspect of the ruling serves as a crucial clarification on the interplay between different legal remedies under the Trade Marks Act. It affirms that a party cannot use the "groundless threats" provision as a permanent shield against a legitimate infringement claim.

Balancing Convenience and Granting Relief

Finding the balance of convenience firmly in Indospirit’s favour, the Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive restraining order. Ravi Mohan Studios, along with its officers and agents, is now barred from using, adopting, promoting, publishing, or otherwise exploiting the "BROCODE" mark or any deceptively similar variant in connection with its film. This injunction extends to all promotional materials, including trailers, teasers, posters, and social media content.

The Court, however, was careful to ensure its order was not punitive beyond what was necessary to protect the trademark. Justice Karia clarified that the studio is free to continue the production of the film itself, provided it complies with the restrictions on the use of the "BROCODE" mark.

Ravi Mohan Studios has been directed to file its reply within four weeks. Indospirit may file a rejoinder thereafter, with the next hearing scheduled for December 23, 2025.

Legal Implications and Takeaways

This interim order offers several key insights for intellectual property practitioners:

1. Brand Extension Matters: The court gave significant weight to Indospirit's activities in the entertainment sector (YouTube series, music video), even without a registered trademark in Class 41. This reinforces the importance for brand owners to document all uses of their mark, as these activities can be pivotal in demonstrating the natural zone of expansion and claiming broader rights.
   
   
2. Strategic Use of Section 142: The ruling clarifies the procedural hierarchy between an action against groundless threats and a suit for infringement. It demonstrates that filing an infringement suit is the definitive counter-move to allegations of making baseless legal threats.
   
   
3. Goodwill Across Classes: The decision is a strong precedent for the principle that well-known marks can transcend their registered classifications. The likelihood of confusion is not merely about identical products but about the potential for consumers to assume an association, sponsorship, or endorsement that does not exist.

As brands increasingly engage with consumers across multiple platforms, from physical products to digital content, the boundaries between traditional trademark classes are becoming more fluid. This ruling from the Delhi High Court reflects that commercial reality, affirming that the protection of goodwill and the prevention of consumer confusion remain paramount objectives of trademark law.

Indospirit Beverages was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, briefed by Advocates Ankur Sangal, Aditya Ganju, Ankit Arvind, Shilpi Sinha, Priyanka Jaiswal, Saumanyu Sethi, and Nishesh Gupta from Khaitan & Co. Ravi Mohan Studios was represented by Advocates Karthikei Balan, Vishnu Kumar, and Sidhant Verma.