Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Order Restraining Ravi Mohan Studios From Using 'BRO CODE' For Tamil Film

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to stay the operation of a single-judge order that had restrained actor Ravi Mohan's production house from using the title 'BRO CODE' for its upcoming Tamil film, following a trademark dispute with Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, the maker of the alcoholic beverage 'BROCODE'.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla issued notice on the appeal filed by Ravi Mohan Studios but declined to grant an interim stay, observing that doing so would virtually amount to allowing the appeal and could even have the effect of disposing of the underlying suit itself.

The Bench observed that “grant of stay of the impugned order would effectively amount to allowing the appeal and may even amount to disposing of the suit itself. As such, it is not possible for us to grant a stay on the order.” 

During the hearing, the court orally questioned the legality of the ad-interim order passed by the Single Judge, noting that the order did not satisfy the requirements of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, which defines trademark infringement.

“There has to be something… your case doesn't fall under any provision under which injunction is given. If it is so, it's definitely the case for interference. You please tell us, before arguing saying that we are in ad-interim and this and that, under which provision it falls. Section 29(4) says a registered trademark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor, uses in the course of trade a trademark which is identical or similar to the registered mark in relation to goods. Number 1, the registered trademark has a reputation in India. Number 2, use of the mark is without due cause. Number 3, by use of the mark you are taking unfair advantage or it is detrimental to its distinctive character. Number 4, your mark must have distinctive character or repute. There is not even a prima facie observation on any of these four conditions in the order..neither does the order invoke Section 29(4),” the Court told Indospirit's counsel.

Despite these observations, the court refused to stay the single-judge order at this stage. The appeal is now scheduled for hearing in the first week of December, while another contempt plea against Ravi Mohan Studios is listed before the single judge on November 25.

The Single Bench had granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Indospirit Beverages, a Delhi-based company founded in 2014 and known for its popular carbonated wine-in-a-pint product 'BROCODE'.

The company had accused the studio of adopting its flagship trademark as the title of an upcoming Tamil movie without consent. The court observed that Indospirit had made out a prima facie case of infringement, holding that the use of an identical mark without authorization was likely to cause confusion among consumers and lead to irreparable injury to the company.

The single bench had restrained Ravi Mohan Studios, its directors, employees, agents, and associates from using, promoting, publishing, displaying, or otherwise exploiting the mark 'BROCODE' or any deceptively similar mark in connection with the film, its trailer, teaser, posters, social media campaign, or any related content in physical or digital form. The order clarified that production of the film could continue as long as the injunction was observed.

According to Indospirit, it has been using the 'BROCODE' mark since 2015 for its beverage line and, more recently, for digital content such as the 'BroCode Roast' YouTube series and the 'BroCode: Onam Ulsavam Song', which have collectively garnered millions of views online.

The company asserted that its mark enjoys strong goodwill and recognition extending beyond the beverage industry, qualifying it as a well-known mark under trademark law.

Ravi Mohan Studios had countered that Indospirit does not hold a registration in Class 41, which covers entertainment services, and relied on an interim order from the Madras High Court protecting it from alleged groundless infringement threats.

The single bench had rejected this argument, noting that such a remedy ends once a formal infringement suit is filed.

Case Title: Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited vs Indospirit Beverages Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1476

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) - 184/2025