Delhi High Court Bars Ravi Mohan Studios from Using BRO CODE as Film Title

Delhi High Court Protects “BRO CODE” Trademark

In an intellectual property case in the entertainment sector, the Delhi High Court has made a dramatic order. The production house is called a Ravi Mohan Studios, which has been temporarily barred by the court to make use of the title BRO CODE in its next feature film. This ruling followed a lawsuit that was filed by another media house that argued that it had exclusive rights to the name. Justice Anish Dayal gave this decision.

This order is a provisional injunction implying that it is a temporary agreement to avert any kind of harm pending the hearing of the case. The digital media company Rusk Media Private Limited was the one that initiated this legal action. According to them, they are the creators, and the owners of the brand BRO CODE and that the film studio was trying to use their established title illegally.

This injunction prevents Ravi Mohan Studios to use the name in dispute in its capacity. This is all the promotional contents, trailers, posters and the ultimate release of the movie itself. The ruling highlights the increased significance of safeguarding titles and brands within the media environment, although they might have been created on digital media as opposed to traditional cinema.

The case reveals the legal struggles that may arise when a catchphrase or title achieves a lot of popularity. In this case, the court has the major part to play in deciding on who utilizes the title earlier and the possibility of the public confusing with a new, similar product. In this case, the claim of the original creator was upheld by the verdict of the High Court.

The Heart of the Legal Dispute

The plaintiff is the producer of a very popular web series that is also known under the title of BRO CODE and is called Rusk Media. The series, whose first episode was released in 2017, has been widespread on online platforms, such as YouTube. The show has also managed to release several seasons over the years, and it has gathered millions of views, which have developed a large and core fanbase.

After providing legal complaint, Rusk Media claimed that they have dedicated a lot of time, efforts and funds in developing the brand, named BRO CODE. They argued that the title is no longer a generic phrase but it now is directly and strictly linked to what they are talking about in the minds of the people. This, they claimed, enables them to have a common law right to the title.

Moreover, Rusk Media also notified the court that they have a registered trademark of the mark BRO CODE. The registration gives them a solid statutory priority of utilizing the name in services pertaining to entertainment. They reasoned that such registration makes their title claim legally inimitable and entrenches their right to the ownership of the brand.

It started after Rusk Media found out that Ravi Mohan Studios was aggressively publicizing its new feature film under the same name. Rusk Media argued that this was an intentional infringement. They argued that the studio was attempting to piggyback on the fame of their web series and deceive the viewers into believing that the film had any relationship with their successful web series.

The Court’s Reasoning for the Injunction

Justice Anish Dayal in awarding the injunction had determined that Rusk Media had made a considerable prima facie case. The term is a legal term that when the first impression is the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and his arguments are so convincing that they will probably win the case. The court recognized that Rusk Media had earlier used the title, which is dated 2017.

The court noted that the title BRO CODE has been used over a long period of time and it has come to have a secondary meaning since it is used by Rusk Media. This implies that although the usage of the words bro and code are not new, the term BRO Code has been specialized and is now distinctively known to the web series of the plaintiff. This uniqueness is one of the major sources of trademark protection.

The high likelihood of possible confusion by the population was a critical aspect in the reasoning of the court. The defendant and the plaintiff are in the same business, which is the media and entertainment. The court ruled that in case the film was released under the same name, there is a high possibility that the movie would deceive and confuse the audience. The audience would tend to suspect that the movie was a novel artwork of the authors of the web show.

Justice Dayal explained that the granting of the title to the defendant will create irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill that Rusk Media had taken many years to establish. The plaintiff was declared to have a better balance of convenience. This implies that the harm that Rusk Media would suffer in case it had not been granted the injunction would be much more than the harm caused to the defendant had it been.

Understanding Trademark and “Passing Off” in Media

The case in the High Court is a typical illustration of two important legal terms, which are infringement of the trademark and passing off. A trademark refers to a phrase, word or symbol that shows the origin of a product or service. By registering the BRO CODE as a trademark, Rusk Media obtained the legal monopoly to use the name in the entertainment services.

A trademark infringement is where an infringement by another party is done through the use of a mark which is identical or confusingly similar to an existing registered trademark in a similar product or service. In this case, Ravi Mohan Studios was operating under the same title (BRO CODE) to the same service (an entertainment film). This provided a clear-cut case of infringement, since it would be confusing to the people on the origin of the film.

Another principle, which is involved in the case, is the principle of passing off. It is a right of common law that shields the goodwill and reputation of the business despite the absence of registration of the trademark. In order to succeed in a winning off claim a plaintiff should demonstrate that his mark is of strong popularity, that the defendant misrepresented and that this act of misrepresentation has led to harm to his or her goodwill.