Delhi High Court Restrains Use of “BRO CODE” as Film Title Over Trademark Concerns

In Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Mohan Studios Pvt. Ltd. (CS(COMM) 1104/2025), the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the production house from using “BRO CODE” as the title of its upcoming film.

The Court found that the studio’s adoption of an identical title was likely to mislead consumers and take unfair advantage of the well-established BROCODE beverage brand, which has gained substantial recognition through marketing efforts and digital content with millions of views.

Rejecting arguments based on registration gaps and a prior Madras High Court order on groundless threats, the Court held that once an infringement suit is filed, such objections cannot limit the jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief.

Netflix India Transfer Pricing Case: ITAT Mumbai Delivers Landmark Ruling on Digital Distribution Model‌

ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹445 Cr TP Adjustment in Netflix India Case; Clarifies Characterisation of Digital Distribution Model.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP (AY 2021-22), deleting a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹445 crores proposed by the TPO.

The Tribunal held that Netflix India functions solely as a limited-risk distributor of access to the global streaming platform and does not own or exploit any intellectual property, technology, or content. Rejecting the TPO’s recharacterisation, the ITAT confirmed that all DEMPE functions, key assets, and entrepreneurial risks rest with foreign Associated Enterprises.

Upholding TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method, the Tribunal observed that Netflix India’s 1.36% margin fell squarely within the arm’s-length range and that the TPO’s use of the “Other Method” and royalty benchmarks was factually and legally untenable. The DRP’s ad-hoc attribution of 43% revenue to the Indian entity was also dismissed as lacking economic rationale.

High Court cannot review or reopen an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act once the arbitral process has commenced – SC

In Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. (SLP (C) No. 4211 of 2025; 2025 INSC 1385), the Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review or reopen an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act once the arbitral process has commenced.

The Court observed that the power under Section 11 is narrow and there is no statutory basis for a review or reconsideration of such orders, especially after parties have actively participated in the arbitration. It reiterated that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, and once an arbitrator is appointed, the referring court becomes functus officio.

The Court further held that the arbitration agreement under Clause 25 was valid and subsisting, noting that both parties had invoked the clause on multiple occasions, participated in over seventy hearings, and jointly sought extensions under Section 29A, signifying clear waiver of any objections to arbitrability.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the arbitral process and clarified that in circumstances where the arbitrator becomes unable to continue, the appropriate course is to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2), rather than nullifying the proceedings altogether.

Delhi High Court rejects concept of Virtual Service PE de hors specific clause in DTAA

The Delhi High Court in the case of Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd. (“taxpayer”) dismissed Revenue’s appeals against the Tribunal order, holding that in absence of a specific clause in the India-Singapore DTAA, it was not open to the tax authorities to import the concept of Virtual Service Permanent Establishment into the India-Singapore DTAA to bring to tax profits of the non-resident taxpayer in India.

The High Court further held that in computing the number of days spent in India for determining the constitution of Service PE in terms of Article 5(6)(a) of the DTAA, the days on which the employees of the taxpayer were on vacation and the days spent in India on business development shall be excluded. Also, in case of common days spent by employees, the number of days shall be computed on an overall basis and not on the basis of man days spent.

The team from Vaish Associates Advocates, comprising Mr. Aditya Vohra, Mr. Kunal Pandey and Mr. Tanmay Dhakras, Advocates, briefed Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate.

For any further information/clarification, please feel free to write to:

Mr. Aditya Vohra at [email protected] and Mr. Kunal Pandey at [email protected].

Customs and GST Alert – December 2025

We are pleased to share with you our latest Customs and GST Alert, covering recent judgments and regulatory updates.

We trust that you will find the same useful.

Looking forward to receiving your valuable feedback.