Introduction

This interim order addresses a recurrent and practically significant dispute in the media and entertainment industry: can a producer stop others from using the same title for a different film or web-series? The plaintiff, a veteran producer who released the Hindi film “LOOTERE” in 1993, sought to restrain Star India (now JioStar India Pvt. Ltd.) and a production services entity from producing, releasing, or exploiting a web-series titled “LOOTERE” on the OTT platform Disney+ Hotstar.

He relied on two planks: (1) his copyright in the 1993 cinematograph film and (2) registrations of the title “LOOTERE” with producers’ associations (including Western India Film Producers Association) for various formats (feature film, TV serial, web-series, web film). The defendants countered that there is no copyright in a mere title; association title registrations have no statutory force against non-members; and in any case the plaintiff delayed, while the series was already streaming.

The key issues included:

• Whether copyright can subsist in a film/web-series title, enabling an injunction.
• Whether title registrations with producers’ associations create enforceable rights against non-members.
• Whether the plaintiff established infringement of any underlying “work” (story/script or the cinematograph film) or pleaded trademark/passing off.
• Whether delay and the fact of post-release streaming defeated interim injunctive relief.

Summary of the Judgment

• No copyright in a mere title: Reaffirming the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta (2016) 2 SCC 521, the Court held that a title by itself is not a “work” under the Copyright Act; hence no copyright can subsist in the title “LOOTERE”.
• Association title registrations are private, contractual, and non-statutory: Such registrations may be binding among members but create no enforceable right against non-members (here, Star/JioStar was not a member). The Court followed the Madras High Court Division Bench in Lyca Productions v. J. Manimaran 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 597 and a Bombay High Court order in Fish Eye Network (2011).
• No infringement of the underlying work was pleaded or shown: The 1993 film “LOOTERE” is a love story; the 2024 web-series explores piracy off the Somalian coast. No copying of story/ screenplay or cinematograph film was alleged.
• Delay and infructuousness: The plaintiff had knowledge since September 2022; the series streamed from 22 March 2024. Without a prayer to take down/remove the streamed series, a restraint on “production/release/exploitation” was infructuous; damages (not claimed) would be the appropriate remedy.
• No trademark or passing off claim: The plaintiff did not sue on trademark or passing off. “Lootere” is a common descriptive word (robbers/pirates) and cannot be monopolized absent distinct trademark rights/secondary meaning.
• Triple test for interim injunction failed: No prima facie right, no irreparable injury (post-release), and balance of convenience against the plaintiff.

Result: Interim Application dismissed; no temporary injunction.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Krishika Lulla & Others v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta & Another (2016) 2 SCC 521

   The Supreme Court held that a mere title (e.g., “Desi Boyz”) is not a “work” and thus is not protected by copyright; where protection is needed, it may lie in trademark or passing off, not copyright. Justice Marne relies heavily on this binding authority to reject the plaintiff’s core contention that copyright in his cinematograph film confers copyright over the title “LOOTERE”.

2. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Ameya Vinod Khopkar Entertainment & Others (2020) 83 PTC 309 (Bom)

   This Bombay High Court decision reiterates the Krishika Lulla rule in the film sequel context, clarifying that titles do not attract copyright and that passing off requires distinct facts (e.g., misrepresentation), which were not pleaded here.

3. M/s Lyca Productions & Another v. J. Manimaran & Others 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 597 (DB)

   The Madras High Court Division Bench held that title registration with a producers’ association does not create an exclusive, enforceable right against non-members. Justice Marne adopts this rationale to hold the plaintiff’s registrations are at best intra-association rules without statutory force against Star/JioStar, a non-member.

4. Fish Eye Network Pvt. Ltd. v. Association of Motion Pictures and T.V. Programme Producers & Others (Bombay HC, 5 April 2011, ad-interim)

   The Court observed that association-based title registration lacks statutory footing and that there is, prima facie, no copyright in a title. This supports the present dismissal at the interim stage.

5. Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay HC, 7 March 2025) and Sanjay S/o Girish Kumar Singh v. Karan Johar (Bombay HC DB, 7 May 2025)

   Relied on by the plaintiff, these cases dealt with personality/publicity rights. Justice Marne distinguishes them: they are inapposite to a claim based solely on title ownership absent persona exploitation.

Legal Reasoning

1. No copyright in titles under the Copyright Act, 1957

   Section 13 protects three classes of “works”: original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; cinematograph films; and sound recordings. A single word/phrase title, standing alone, is not a “work” (Section 2(y)) and cannot attract copyright. The Court reiterates that even if one owns copyright in a film and possibly its script/story, that does not confer copyright in the film’s title. Any remedy for title misuse ordinarily lies in trademark or passing off, not in copyright.

2. No infringement of the underlying “work” was asserted

   The plaintiff did not allege copying of the 1993 film’s story or cinematograph film. The Court records that the web-series (Somalian piracy) and the film (love story) have dissimilar plots, casts, and scenes. Without alleging/establishing substantial similarity in the protectable expression (story/screenplay) or copying of the cinematograph film, a copyright claim cannot succeed.

3. Association title registrations: private, non-statutory, and unenforceable against non-members

   Registrations with film producers’ associations are internal, contractual mechanisms to minimize title conflicts among members. They do not create statutory rights. As Star/JioStar is not a member of the Plaintiff’s association (WIFPA), the plaintiff cannot enforce the association’s internal rules against it. This mirrors Lyca Productions (DB) and Fish Eye Network.

4. Descriptive/common title cannot be monopolized

   “LOOTERE” (Hindi for robbers) is a common descriptive term. Even in trademark/passing off law (not pleaded here), such terms face high thresholds for protection (secondary meaning, distinctiveness). The Court notes industry practice of multiple different works sharing titles (“HERA PHERI”, “AANKHEN”, “DILWALE”, “DOSTANA”, “SHANDAAR”, “DOSTI”) without copyright conflicts, so long as the underlying works are different.

5. Delay and infructuousness defeat interim relief

   • The plaintiff knew of the series since September 2022; the series streamed from 22 March 2024. The suit (filed 15 March 2024) lacked the urgency and promptness expected for pre-release injunctions.
   • By the hearing, “production” and “release” had occurred; there was no amended prayer for takedown/removal of streamed content. Consequently, the specific interim restraint sought had become infructuous.

6. Triple test for temporary injunction not met

   • Prima facie case: No copyright in title; no enforceable association right against non-members; no pleaded infringement of script/film; no trademark/passing off claim.
   • Irreparable harm: Streaming had commenced; monetary compensation could suffice and was the appropriate remedy, but damages were not claimed.
   • Balance of convenience: It tilted against disrupting an already released series, particularly given the plaintiff’s delay.

7. Enquiries/NOC from a third party do not create duty

   Defendant No. 2’s enquiry with an association and an alleged NOC from another entity (BSK Entertainment) did not bind Defendant No. 1 (the producer/streamer). Such conduct does not transform non-existent statutory obligations into enforceable rights in favor of the plaintiff.

8. Karan Johar/personal rights distinguished

   The Court clarified that cases protecting personality/publicity rights are distinct; they do not stand for a general proposition that titles are protectable via copyright or association registration against non-members.

Impact and Implications

This decision consolidates and extends existing law into the contemporary OTT context, with several practical ramifications:

• Industry certainty: Producers cannot deploy copyright law to block others from using the same/similar titles for different works. Strategic reliance must shift to trademarks and passing off (where applicable) rather than copyright.
• Association registrations re-scoped: Title registrations with producers’ associations, while useful for internal coordination, cannot be weaponized against non-members. Cross-association conflicts will not invite judicial protection absent statutory rights.
• OTT litigation timing matters: Pre-release injunctions require speed and precision. Once streaming begins, a generic restraint on “production/release/exploitation” may be dismissed as infructuous unless expressly framed as a takedown/removal prayer, supported by grounds recognized in law (e.g., trademark/passing off, defamation, privacy/publicity, or actual copyright infringement of the underlying work).
• Descriptive titles are weak assets: Common words such as “Lootere” rarely support exclusivity. Where exclusivity is crucial, stakeholders should adopt distinctive titles and pursue trademark registration early, coupled with evidence of use and secondary meaning.
• Damages over injunctions post-release: When delay occurs or release has happened, courts are inclined to deny injunctive relief and steer plaintiffs toward damages (which must be pleaded and proved).
• Risk management for producers/streamers: Due diligence should focus on:
  • Clearing underlying works (script/story/screenplay) to avoid substantive copyright claims.
  • Trade mark searches and filings for distinctive titles/logos.
  • Assessing personality/publicity issues if titles, plots, or marketing leverage identifiable persons.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Cinematograph film vs. title: Copyright protects the film as an audiovisual “work” and its underlying literary work (story/script). The title (a word/phrase) is not, by itself, a protectable “work.”
• “Work” under the Copyright Act: Protectable “works” include literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works; cinematograph films; and sound recordings. A standalone title usually falls outside these categories.
• Producers’ association title registrations: These are private, self-regulatory tools to minimize member conflicts. They are not statutory rights and cannot bind non-members.
• Passing off (simplified): A common law remedy against misrepresentation that causes the public to believe one party’s goods/services are those of another, damaging the latter’s goodwill. Not pleaded here.
• Trademark protection for titles: Distinctive titles may be registered as trademarks; stronger protection flows from such registration and from proving goodwill/secondary meaning. Descriptive/generic titles face hurdles.
• Interim injunction “triple test”: Courts grant temporary injunctions only if the applicant shows (i) a strong prima facie case; (ii) likely irreparable harm absent an injunction; and (iii) that the balance of convenience favors restraint.
• Infructuous relief: A request becomes infructuous if the action sought to be restrained has already occurred (e.g., production/release). Post-release, the proper remedy may be removal/takedown (if legally justified) or damages.

Practical Takeaways

• Titles, by themselves, are not protected by copyright in India. Plan title protection through trademarks and coherent branding strategies.
• Association title registration is prudent as an industry courtesy but is not a legal shield against non-members; do not rely on it for court-ordered restraints.
• Where title misuse threatens goodwill or consumer confusion, frame the case as trademark infringement and/or passing off with evidence of distinctiveness and misrepresentation.
• To protect creative content, focus on the underlying “work” (script/screenplay/story), not just the title. Record assignments and registrations where available.
• Move swiftly for pre-release injunctions. Once release/streaming occurs, a mere restraint on production/release is likely to be refused; consider takedown remedies or damages.
• Descriptive/generic titles are difficult to monopolize. Prefer distinctive, coined titles if exclusivity is a goal.

Conclusion

This decision reinforces a consistent line of Indian jurisprudence: a film or web-series title, standing alone, is not a copyrightable “work.” The Court further clarifies that producers’ association title registrations are private, non-statutory arrangements that cannot be enforced against non-members. In the absence of a pleaded trademark or passing off case, and without any allegation of copying the underlying literary/cinematographic work, the plaintiff’s claim for an interim injunction fails.

Equally important are the procedural lessons for the OTT age: litigation must be prompt and precisely framed. A prayer to restrain “production/release/exploitation” after streaming has commenced is likely to be considered infructuous unless accompanied by a legally grounded takedown/removal request. The ruling accordingly nudges the industry toward robust IP clearance on underlying works, strategic use of trademark/passing off remedies for titles, and timely, well-pleaded actions where urgent injunctive relief is truly warranted.

Significance: The judgment provides clear guidance to content creators, studios, and platforms: titles are weak assets under copyright law; association registrations do not create enforceable exclusivity against outsiders; and courts will deny belated or misframed injunctions, especially post-release. It therefore sets practical guardrails for future disputes at the intersection of copyright, branding, and OTT distribution.