Delhi High Court restrains use of ‘Bro Code’ title in Ravi Mohan’s next film.
Tamil actor Ravi Mohan’s upcoming film Bro Code has hit a legal roadblock after the Delhi High Court prohibited the production house from using the title. The court held that “Bro Code” is a registered trademark of Indospirit Beverages, a popular alcohol brand, and that its use for the film could mislead consumers and damage the brand’s reputation. Justice Tejas Karia observed that the title appears to be used “identically and without authorisation,” amounting to trademark infringement and creating a likelihood of confusion among the public. Indospirit Beverages argued that the film sought to exploit the goodwill it has built over the years. The producers contended that the company’s mark isn’t registered under Class 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which covers entertainment services. The court, however, sided with the beverage brand at this stage and directed the makers not to use the name Bro Code in any form until further notice. Directed by Karthik Yogi, the film features Ravi Mohan along with SJ Suryah, Arjun Ashokan, Upendra, Gouri Priya, Shraddha Srinath, Malavika Manoj, and Aishwarya Raj. Initially planned for a 2026 release, the project may now face delays due to the ongoing legal dispute. See here for more.
SC to hear pleas against Online Gaming Act, 2025 on November 4
The Supreme Court scheduled November 4 for hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The matters were transferred from the Delhi, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts to avoid multiple parallel proceedings. The Act bans “online money games” and restricts associated banking, advertising, and service support, while allowing and regulating social, educational, and esports-based gaming. Companies such as Dream11, Pokerbazi, and Rummy Circle have already halted real-money contests in compliance with the law.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan by senior advocates C. Aryaman Sundaram and Arvind P. Datar. Sundaram noted that the case was earlier mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for an urgent hearing. The Bench agreed: “Then we will hear it.” In its September 8 transfer order, the apex court directed the High Courts to send complete records, including interlocutory applications, within one week. The Act imposes stringent penalties for violations, including fines of up to ₹1 crore and imprisonment of up to 3 years. Introduced by Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the Bill was cleared swiftly during the Monsoon Session: seven minutes in the Lok Sabha and 26 minutes in the Rajya Sabha. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said the legislation aims to protect society from the harms of online money gaming. See here for here.
Bombay HC clears Manjrekar’s film for release: ‘Shivaji Maharaj’ name cannot be monopolised.
The Bombay High Court has refused to halt the release of Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale, a Marathi film directed by Mahesh Manjrekar, after Everest Entertainment LLP alleged it was an unauthorised sequel to its 2009 hit Mi Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy. Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, hearing the matter on the vacation bench, said the producer had approached the court far too late—filing the case on October 10 despite knowing about the project since April. “A litigant who adopts a relaxed approach does not deserve any equity,” the court noted, stressing that injunctions sought at the last hour should be discouraged. Everest argued that it owned exclusive rights over sequels and derivative works under agreements signed with Mr Manjrekar, and that the new film copied characters, dialogues, and the title in a manner likely to mislead viewers. Countering this, counsel for the filmmakers said the movie is an entirely distinct work focused on farmers’ distress and corruption. Reiterating settled copyright law, the court observed: “There can be no copyright in an idea, principle, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts… violation is confined to the form, manner, arrangement and expression of the idea.” Finding no substantial copying, the judge said commonly used Marathi phrases and standard poster fonts cannot give rise to exclusivity. On the issue of titles and historical names, the court was clear that: “The Plaintiff cannot claim any goodwill or exclusivity in these names or titles,” including “Shivajiraje Bhosale” and “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.” Rejecting any likelihood of public confusion, the court held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the filmmakers. The interim application has been listed for final hearing on November 17, but the movie will be released as planned on October 31. See here for more.
Shah Bano’s legal heirs move HC to halt release of Haq.
The legal heirs of Shah Bano Begum have approached the Indore High Court seeking an immediate stay on the release of the upcoming film Haq, starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi. Set to premiere on November 7, the film is alleged to distort Sharia principles and hurt Muslim sentiments. The petitioners further argue that the filmmakers have depicted private aspects of Begum’s life without securing her family’s consent or rights. Earlier, a legal notice had also been issued to the producers, as reported by India Today, accusing them of defamation and violation of personality and publicity rights. Advocate Tousif Z. Warsi, representing the family, said they have demanded clarity on the film’s storyline and thematic treatment before its release. Haq is reportedly inspired by the landmark 1985 Supreme Court verdict in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, which affirmed a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Indian law. Based on journalist Jigna Vora’s book Bano: Bharat Ki Beti, the film explores the legal and social upheaval surrounding such cases. However, director Suparn Verma recently told Mid-Day that the narrative is fictional and informed by multiple real-life cases. The 1985 judgment in Shah Bano’s case remains a watershed moment in Indian women’s rights, highlighting the tension between gender justice and personal law. Begum died in 1992 due to a brain haemorrhage. See here for more.
Chiranjeevi files police complaint over deepfake adult videos.
Tollywood megastar Chiranjeevi has filed a complaint with the Hyderabad Cybercrime Police after AI-generated pornographic videos featuring his likeness surfaced on at least three adult websites. In the five-page complaint, he said the deepfakes — depicting him with a Bollywood actress — are being monetised and maliciously used to tarnish his image. Calling it a “direct and deliberate violation” of his privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, Chiranjeevi said the clips have caused severe emotional distress to him and his family. He alleged the content was created using advanced AI tools and distributed by an organised cybercrime network. The actor has submitted URLs of the fake videos and sought immediate removal of the material, as well as identification of those involved. He also attached a September 26 order of the Hyderabad City Civil Court, which bars media and online platforms from exploiting his name or image without permission — a protection of his personality and publicity rights.
Based on the complaint, police have booked offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act (obscene content online), Sections 79, 294, 296 and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women Act. Investigators said technical details of the websites are being collected to initiate action. Though tracing deepfake creators is challenging and often requires cooperation from foreign-based hosting platforms, advanced cyber-forensic methods may help establish accountability. See here for more.
PIL challenges Paresh Rawal’s The Taj Story over ‘fabricated narratives’; Delhi HC to hear matter
The Taj Story, starring Paresh Rawal, sparked legal controversy soon after its trailer release. A PIL filed before the Delhi High Court alleges that the film promotes “fabricated and misleading narratives” about the origins of the Taj Mahal and advances divisive, politically charged interpretations of history. The plea claims the filmmakers—C.A. Suresh Jha, Tushar Amrish Goel, and Saurabh M. Pandey have a record of producing “controversial and divisive” films. It raises objections to scenes inspired by debunked theories, including a depiction of the Taj’s dome revealing a figure of Lord Shiva, which has already triggered public criticism and debate. The petitioner has requested directions to the CBFC to re-examine the film’s certification, mandate a clear disclaimer indicating that the story is fictional, and take measures to prevent any possible disturbance to public order. Responding to the controversy, Rawal told ANI that the film does not aim to provoke but rather “reveals the truth” behind long-standing myths about the monument. He noted that misconceptions, including claims that the hands of 22,000 workers were severed, are addressed in the narrative, which focuses on the Taj Mahal’s architectural and historical evolution. See here for more. See here for more.
‘Shakthi Thirumagan’ faces story theft allegations
Shakthi Thirumagan, starring Vijay Antony and directed by Arun Prabhu Purushothaman, released in theatres on September 19 to positive reviews. The film, centred on social issues, gained further attention after its OTT premiere on October 24, attracting a new wave of appreciation from audiences. However, its growing popularity has now brought it into a plagiarism controversy. Writer Subhash Sundar has alleged that Shakthi Thirumagan is derived from a script he wrote three years ago, titled “Thalaivan”. According to his statement, he wrote the story with actor Madhavan envisioned as the antagonist and submitted it to Dream Warriors Pictures, the production company behind the critically acclaimed Aruvi. He claims that the storyline could have been accessed from there. Subhash Sundar has shared what he describes as copyright registration documents and excerpts from the story as proof. He wrote that he has registered his script with “Copyrights of India” and has the evidence of submission to the production house. However, the film’s Director, Arun Prabhu, has responded to the allegations via Instagram, calling them “Completely false, baseless slander. This is a story I have developed over many years through my own hard work.” See here for more
