Updated on: Oct 28, 2025 09:18 pm IST
Ravi Mohan Studios is in a legal tussle with Indospirit Beverages over the title Bro Code. Here’s what the actor’s team has to say about it.
Ever since Ravi Mohan announced the title Bro Code for one of his upcoming films, he has been embroiled in a legal dispute with Indospirit Beverages over it. After the Madras High Court allowed Ravi to use the title, the Delhi High Court this month restricted him from doing so. Now, the actor-producer alleges that the beverage brand took the legal route due to this. (Also Read: Ravi Mohan faces setback over Bro Code at Delhi HC; restrained from using title in legal tussle with beverage company)
Ravi Mohan alleges beverage brand asked him to promote Bro Code drink
In a press note shared by his team, Ravi claimed that the beverage brand asked him to promote their alcoholic brand in the film, but he turned it down. The note reads: “RaviMohan studios registered its copyright BroCode Title for its script and its artistic work in the Entertainment category. #BroCode beverages team have asked RaviMohan to promote their brand in the film. RaviMohan refused it, as it would set a wrong example.”
He also claims that the beverage company approached Delhi HC after that and did not challenge the Madras HC’s order, “So the beverage company has registered a case at Delhi against this Title and not challenged the Madras High Court verdict so far. Madras High Court continues to uphold @RaviMohanStudio’s rights over the title #BroCode, restraining Delhi Indo Beverages. Interim order extended till 21 Nov 2025.”
He ended the note with, “Also, the beverage company is planning to launch their brand in TN, so they have started this publicity stunt to push the brand in TN.”
What did the Delhi HC say
On Monday, news broke that the Delhi HC has restrained Ravi Mohan Studios from using the title Bro Code to promote their film. The order was passed in a trademark infringement suit filed by IndoBevs, who use the name for its alcoholic and ready-to-drink beverages. The court found that the brand is closely associated with the company’s products, observing that it’s identical to the registered trademark and could mislead the public.
