Bombay High Court | Registration of Film Title With Producers’ Association Does Not Create Exclusive Statutory Right | Copyright Act Clarified as Court Dismisses ‘Lootere’ Injunction Plea
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne has dismissed an application for temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that no copyright can subsist in the mere title of a film and consequently refused to restrain the defendants from producing, releasing, or exploiting a web series bearing the same title. The Court further observed that the registration of film titles with producers’ associations does not confer any statutory rights enforceable against non-members. It directed that the interim application stands dismissed as the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable loss, or balance of convenience.
The dispute arose over the use of the title ‘LOOTERE’. The plaintiff, a film producer operating under the proprietary concern Shree Krishna International, claimed rights over the title based on two grounds: ownership of copyright in the cinematograph film released in 1993 under the same title, and registration of the title with associations of film producers. The plaintiff had earlier produced and released a Hindi feature film titled ‘LOOTERE’, directed by Dharmesh Darshan and starring Sunny Deol, Juhi Chawla, and others. The film had received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification in March 1993. The plaintiff also relied upon a registration granted by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights for the cinematograph film.
Upon learning that the defendants, engaged in the business of film production and OTT streaming, had produced a web series titled ‘LOOTERE’ for release on the platform Disney Hotstar, the plaintiff issued a legal notice in September 2022. The defendants responded but proceeded with the release, which took place on 22 March 2024. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.
In the interim application, the plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from producing or releasing any entertainment programme under the title ‘LOOTERE’. The plaintiff argued that the title was duly registered with film associations for use in feature films, TV serials, web series, and web films. The plaintiff also contended that if rights in the title were irrelevant, the defendants would not have attempted to secure a No Objection Certificate from another party claiming rights in the same title.
The defendants opposed the application, submitting that copyright cannot exist in mere titles under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta, which categorically held that titles by themselves are not literary works capable of copyright protection.
The defendants also argued that registration of titles with film producers’ associations has no statutory force and at best creates internal contractual obligations among members. Since the defendants were not members of the plaintiff’s associations, no such obligations could be enforced against them. The defendants further pointed out that there was considerable delay in filing the suit, as the plaintiff first became aware of the defendants’ production in September 2022 but instituted proceedings only in March 2024 after the series had been released.
The plaintiff countered that no delay could be imputed as parties were in correspondence throughout, and that the cause of action continued as the series remained available for streaming. The plaintiff relied on judgments recognizing enforceable rights in titles under limited circumstances, including cases involving personality rights.
The Court considered submissions from both sides, examining statutory provisions, prior precedents, and the facts of the case.
Justice Marne recorded detailed observations on the plaintiff’s claims. The Court noted: “So far as Plaintiff’s claim for ownership of copyright in cinematograph film ‘LOOTERE’ is concerned, there appears to be no difficulty as Defendant Nos.1 and 2 do not seriously dispute this aspect… It is not Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are streaming Plaintiff’s film ‘LOOTERE’ on the OTT platform of Defendant No.1. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim of ownership of copyright in the cinematograph film ‘LOOTERE’ is irrelevant for deciding the issue at hand.”
The Court further stated: “Here again, there is no claim by Plaintiff of infringement of copyright in the literary work of the film ‘LOOTERE’. It is not claimed by him that the web series of Defendant No.1 is based on the literary work of his film ‘LOOTERE’. Plaintiff’s film ‘LOOTERE’ is a love story whereas the web series of Defendant No.1 explores piracy on Somalian seas.”
The judgment stated the settled legal position: “Since title of a book or a film does not constitute a ‘work’ within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, no copyright can subsist in a mere title.” The Court cited the Supreme Court judgement in Krishika Lulla, observing that “it is well settled that copyright does not subsist in a title of work.”
On the issue of association registrations, the Court recorded: “The associations formed by film producers and registrations granted by such associations are nothing but an internal contractual arrangement between the members. The Associations or grant of registrations by them do not have any sanctity in law.” The Court added that such contractual rights “cannot be enforced against an entity which is not a member of the Association.”
The Court distinguished the case cited by the plaintiff involving Karan Johar, stating: “The issue before the learned Single Judge in Karan Johar was entirely different. The case did not involve the issue of existence of any right in mere title of a film. What Plaintiff was seeking to enforce in Karan Johar was personality and publicity rights. The judgment therefore would have no application to the facts of the present case.”
On the plaintiff’s delay, Justice Marne observed: “The Plaintiff has whiled away substantial time of about two years despite acquiring knowledge of plans of Defendant No.1 to produce and stream web-series using the title ‘LOOTERE’… The delay on the part of the Plaintiff in filing the suit is fatal and is a reason enough for declining the discretionary relief of temporary injunction.”
The Court also noted that the plaintiff had not sought damages: “There is no question of cause of any irreparable loss to the Plaintiff as the web-series is already being streamed since March 2024. Plaintiff can claim damages for the alleged loss caused to him. As of now, there is no prayer for damages in the suit.”
The Court concluded its judgment by directing that the interim application stands dismissed. It recorded: “Plaintiff has thus failed to satisfy the triple tests of prima-facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. He does not have any statutory right in use of the title. In absence of Defendant No.1 being member of any Association, Plaintiff is unable to exhibit even a contractual actionable right in the title ‘LOOTERE’ against Defendant No.1. Therefore, no prima-facie case is made in favour of the Plaintiff.”
The Court further directed: “The Interim Application is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi with Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Thomas George, Ms. Tanvi Sinha, Mr. Navankur Pathak, Ms. Neeti Nihal, and Ms. Bhargavi Baradhwaj, Advocates i/b Saikrishna & Associates.
Case Title: Sunil S/o Darshan Saberwal v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:13777
Case Number: Interim Application No. 3347 of 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit No. 236 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
