Madras HC Restrains 'Bro Code' Beverage Maker in Film Title Dispute, Cites Prima Facie Case for Injunction

CHENNAI – In a significant ruling for creative industries navigating the complexities of intellectual property, the Madras High Court has granted a temporary injunction shielding a film production company from trademark infringement threats issued by a beverage manufacturer over the use of the title "Bro Code". The decision underscores the judiciary's role in preventing groundless threats and highlights the distinct legal lanes occupied by goods and artistic works in trademark law.

The court, presided over by Justice V Lakshminarayan, found that a prima facie case existed in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt Ltd., a production house owned by actor Ravi Mohan. The interim order, issued on October 3, 2025, restrains the defendant, M/s Indo Bevs Pvt Ltd., from interfering with the production, marketing, and release of the upcoming action-comedy film also titled BROCODE .

In its order, the court stated, “Prima facie I am of the view that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of an interim order... There shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for, for a period of three weeks.” This swift intervention provides a crucial, albeit temporary, safe harbor for the filmmakers as they proceed with the movie, which has already garnered significant public interest with its teaser attracting over 11 million views.

---

The Heart of the Dispute: A Cross-Class Conflict

The legal battle began when Indo Bevs, the manufacturer of the popular alcoholic/energy beverage 'Bro Code', sent communications to Ravi Mohan Studios demanding they cease using the "BROCODE" mark for their film. The beverage company claimed it had applied for a copyright for the mark and that its use as a film title would constitute an infringement of its intellectual property rights.

In response, Ravi Mohan Studios proactively approached the High Court, filing a civil suit ( C.S.(Comm.Div.).No.258 of 2025 ) seeking two key reliefs:

1. A declaration that using the title “BROCODE” for an artistic work (a cinematograph film) does not infringe upon the defendant's trademark, which is registered for beverages.
2. A permanent injunction to prevent Indo Bevs from making "groundless threats of infringement" or otherwise interfering with any aspect of the film's lifecycle, from production to distribution.

The plaintiff's action can be characterized as a quia timet injunction—an action taken to prevent a future, anticipated harm. Instead of waiting to be sued for infringement, the production company sought judicial clarification and protection, a strategic move to preempt potential disruptions from the beverage maker.

Scrutinizing the Defendant's Trademark Claims

A pivotal element in the court's decision-making process was the status of Indo Bevs' own trademark rights. Mr. S. Karthikei Balan, counsel for Ravi Mohan Studios, successfully argued that the beverage company's position was not as solid as its threats suggested. He submitted that Indo Bevs' application to register the trademark "BROCODE" had been objected to and was still pending consideration before the registry.

While the mark is currently registered for use in the specific class of alcoholic and energy beverages, its broader enforceability, particularly against an entirely different class of service like entertainment and film production, is contentious. This distinction is fundamental to trademark law, which operates on a classification system (the NICE Classification) to prevent consumer confusion between similar marks used for dissimilar goods or services. The likelihood of a consumer mistakenly believing a movie is produced or endorsed by a beverage company simply because they share a common, colloquial term like "Bro Code" is a central question that will be litigated.

The Legal Framework: Prima Facie Case and Order XXXIX

Justice Lakshminarayan's decision to grant the interim injunction hinges on the establishment of a prima facie case. This primary test for granting temporary relief requires the plaintiff to show that there is a serious question to be tried and that the facts, if proven, would entitle them to relief. The court was satisfied that the distinction in the class of goods/services, the pending status of the defendant's trademark application, and the potential for irreparable harm to the film's production schedule constituted a strong initial case.

The court's order explicitly references the procedural requirements under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , which governs temporary injunctions. The judge mandated that the plaintiff must comply with its provisions, which typically include serving notice to the defendant. The injunction's continuation is conditional upon this service, as the court clarified: “In case, the notice is not served, the interim order will not be extended beyond the period of three weeks.” This condition ensures that the defendant is given a fair opportunity to present their case and contest the injunction at the next hearing.

Broader Implications for Intellectual Property and Creative Arts

This case serves as a critical reminder of the legal principles governing trademark disputes across different industries. It highlights several key takeaways for legal practitioners:

• The Power of Proactive Litigation: By filing for a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff seized control of the narrative and sought judicial protection before the defendant could disrupt the film's release with an infringement suit.
• "Groundless Threats" as a Cause of Action: The law provides recourse against entities that make unwarranted threats of legal action. This case demonstrates that courts are willing to step in and restrain such behavior, which can have a chilling effect on legitimate business and creative activities.
• The Limits of Trademark Rights: A trademark registration in one class does not grant a monopoly over the word or phrase across all contexts. The strength of a mark and the likelihood of consumer confusion are paramount, especially when the products are as disparate as a beverage and a feature film.
• The Vulnerability of Pending Marks: Relying on a pending or objected-to trademark application as leverage for infringement threats is a risky strategy. The court's willingness to grant an injunction against the beverage company suggests a judicial skepticism towards claims based on inchoate or contested IP rights.

As the case proceeds, the court will likely delve deeper into the distinctiveness of the "Bro Code" mark, the target audiences for both the drink and the film, and the ultimate question of whether the film's title is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. For now, the Madras High Court's interim order sends a clear message: the use of a common phrase as a brand in one industry will not automatically preclude its use as an artistic title in another, and the judiciary will act to protect creative projects from potentially baseless threats.