No Copyright in Film Titles
Introduction: This case involves a dispute over the use of the title "LOOTERE" in the entertainment industry, pitting a film producer against a media company producing a web series. The plaintiff, who produced a 1993 Hindi film titled "LOOTERE," sought to prevent the defendants from using the same title for their web series, claiming ownership through copyright and registrations with film producers' associations. The Bombay High Court examined whether copyright subsists in a mere title and if such registrations confer enforceable rights against non-members. The judgment underscores the limitations of intellectual property protection in titles under Indian law, emphasizing statutory requirements over industry practices.
Factual Background: The plaintiff, Sunil Saberwal, operating as Shree Krishna International, produced the Hindi film "LOOTERE" in 1993, starring actors like Sunny Deol and Juhi Chawla. The film received a censor certificate and was registered with the Western India Film Producers Association, with renewals extending to categories like web series. The plaintiff also held a copyright certificate for the cinematograph film. In September 2022, the plaintiff discovered a trailer for a web series titled "LOOTERE" on Disney+ Hotstar, produced by the first defendant (originally Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., later amalgamated into Star India Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently JioStar India Pvt. Ltd.) with production services from the second defendant. The web series depicted Somali piracy, unrelated to the plaintiff's love story film. The plaintiff issued notices demanding cessation, but the defendants proceeded, releasing the series on March 22, 2024. The defendants claimed no copyright in titles and obtained a no-objection from another entity believing it held the title.
Procedural Background : The plaintiff filed a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit No. 236 of 2024 in the Bombay High Court, seeking declarations and perpetual injunctions against the defendants' use of "LOOTERE." Concurrently, Interim Application No. 3347 of 2024 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction.
Core Dispute : The central issue was whether the plaintiff could restrain the defendants from using "LOOTERE" based on copyright in the 1993 film or registrations with film associations. The plaintiff argued ownership of the title through copyright and associations' registrations, asserting no other entity could use it without permission. The defendants contended no copyright exists in mere titles, citing Supreme Court precedent, and that associations' registrations lack statutory force, especially against non-members. Additional disputes included delay in filing, the series' release rendering injunction infructuous, and the absence of similarity in underlying works.
Discussion on Judgments: The plaintiff relied on Karan Johar Versus India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. and Others (Interim Application (L) No. 17865 of 2024, decided on March 7, 2025, by the Bombay High Court), where a single judge recognized enforceable rights in a title involving personality rights, as the defendant's film used the plaintiff's name "Karan Johar" in its title and story, leading to an injunction for unauthorized exploitation of publicity rights. This was upheld in Sanjay S/o Girish Kumar Singh Versus Karan Johar also known as Rahul Johar and Others (Commercial Appeal (L) No. 9786 of 2025, decided on May 7, 2025, by the Bombay High Court Division Bench), which affirmed personality and publicity rights protection but clarified it did not extend to mere titles without such elements. The defendants cited Krishika Lulla and Others Versus Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta and Another ((2016) 2 SCC 521, Supreme Court of India), where the court held no copyright subsists in titles like "Desi Boys," as they are not literary works under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, quashing a criminal complaint for infringement. They also referenced M/s. Lyca Productions and Another Versus J. Manimaran and Others (2018 SCC OnLine Mad 597, Madras High Court Division Bench), ruling that title registrations with associations are contractual and not enforceable against non-members, lacking statutory basis. Additional foreign and Indian precedents included Maxwell v. Hogg ((1867) LR 2 Ch App 307, English Court), Francis Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corpn. Ltd. (1939 SCC OnLine PC 50 : AIR 1940 PC 55, Privy Council), E.M. Forster v. A.N. Parasuram (1964 SCC OnLine Mad 23 : AIR 1964 Mad 331, Madras High Court), Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory (2007 SCC OnLine Del 314 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 1122, Delhi High Court), R. Radha Krishnan v. A.R. Murugadoss (2013 SCC OnLine Mad 2968 : (2013) 5 LW 429, Madras High Court), Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Versus Ameya Vinod Khopkar Entertainment and Others ((2020) 83 PTC 309, Bombay High Court), and Fish Eye Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Association of Motion Pictures and T.V. Programme Producers and Others (Notice of Motion in Suit (L) No. 901 of 2011, dated April 5, 2011, Bombay High Court), all reinforcing no copyright in titles and non-statutory nature of associations' registrations.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne meticulously analyzed the plaintiff's claims, distinguishing between copyright in the cinematograph film and its title. He noted the plaintiff's undisputed copyright in the 1993 film but clarified it does not extend to the title, as titles are not "works" under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Relying on Krishika Lulla, he emphasized titles like "LOOTERE" (meaning robbers) lack originality and substantiality for protection. He dismissed the relevance of Karan Johar judgments, as they pertained to personality rights, not mere titles. On associations' registrations, he held they are internal contractual arrangements without statutory force, enforceable only among members, and inapplicable to the non-member first defendant, citing Lyca Productions. He addressed the defendants' inquiry with another association as irrelevant, since the producer (first defendant) did not seek permission and was unbound. The judge highlighted industry practices allowing multiple films with identical titles if stories differ, noting no similarity here. He criticized the plaintiff's delay, from noticing the trailer in September 2022 to filing in March 2024, post-release, rendering the injunction infructuous and indicating lack of urgency. Balance of convenience favored the defendants, with the series already streaming, and any loss compensable by damages, absent in the plaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the interim application, refusing temporary injunction. It held the plaintiff failed the triple test of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. The suit's prayers for restraining production and release were infructuous, as the web series was already streaming.
Law Settled in This Case: This judgment reaffirms that no copyright subsists in mere titles of films or web series under the Copyright Act, 1957, as they do not qualify as original literary works. Registrations with film producers' associations are contractual and lack statutory enforceability, binding only members and ineffective against outsiders. Delays in seeking injunctions, especially post-release, can bar relief, emphasizing the need for prompt action. Personality rights protections do not extend to generic titles without personal elements. Industry customs allowing similar titles persist if underlying stories differ, prioritizing substantive content over nomenclature.
Case Title: Sunil S/o Darshan Saberwal Vs Star India Private Limited And Ors.,
Date of Order: 18 August 2025,
Case Number: Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit No. 236 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13777
Name of Court: Bombay High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sandeep V. Marne.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
