The Delhi High Court has declined to stay a previous order that restrained Ravi Mohan Studios from using the title “BRO CODE” for its upcoming Tamil film. The division bench, comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, observed that granting a stay would effectively allow the appeal and render the original case meaningless at this preliminary stage.
The case arose from a trademark infringement suit filed by Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, the makers of the alcoholic beverage brand “BRO CODE.” The company claimed that the use of the same name for a film would infringe upon their trademark and potentially cause confusion among consumers. Acting on the complaint, a single judge of the Delhi High Court had earlier issued an interim injunction restraining Ravi Mohan Studios from using or promoting the film under that title until the matter is fully adjudicated.
Ravi Mohan Studios appealed against this injunction, arguing that the use of “BRO CODE” as a film title did not amount to trademark infringement since it was being used in a completely different industry and context. The studio contended that the beverage company’s trademark protection could not extend to the entertainment sector, as there was no overlap between their respective markets.
While hearing the appeal, the division bench acknowledged certain legal concerns about the single judge’s findings. The bench noted that under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, it must be established that the trademark has a strong reputation in India, that its use by another party is without due cause, and that such use would harm or take unfair advantage of the original mark. The judges observed that these elements were not explicitly addressed in the lower court’s injunction order.
However, despite these concerns, the bench chose not to interfere with the injunction at this stage. The court reasoned that granting a stay would prematurely dispose of the dispute before the trial could examine the evidence and arguments in detail. The court therefore directed the parties to maintain the current status quo and scheduled the matter for further hearing in early December.
This decision highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases involving interim injunctions and trademark disputes. The court reiterated that appellate intervention in such orders should be limited and that the balance of convenience and potential harm must be carefully weighed before modifying or staying such directives.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.