No Crown in a Common Word: Bombay High Court Refuses to Stall ‘Queen Full Power’, Holds Film Title ‘Queen’ Has Not Acquired Secondary Meaning and Same Star–Director Duo Does Not Make a ‘Spiritual Sequel’

The co-producer of the 2014 film ‘Queen’ sought to restrain Jiostar India and Trigger Happy Entertainment from making ‘Queen Full Power’, which casts the same lead actress and director, alleging passing off of the title and breach of the novated Co-Production Agreement. The Court held that no copyright subsists in a film title, and that a title is protectable in passing off only where it has acquired a secondary meaning that displaces the primary meaning of the word in the minds of cinemagoers – a threshold that is extremely high for a generic, laudatory word such as ‘queen’ (Paras 79–82, 89–92, 109, 113–116). Box-office success and sales figures do not by themselves prove secondary meaning (Paras 89, 103). On a comparison of synopses, the proposed kidnapping thriller was prima facie neither a derivative work nor a ‘spiritual sequel’, which requires shared substantial elements, a common central theme and an express representation or callback by the producers (Paras 74–75, 121–127). There is no proprietorship in a theme or in engaging the same actor and director, and third-party media reports and social media posts do not prove confusion (Paras 133, 139, 150, 160). The classic trinity test of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage failed, and the Interim Application was dismissed (Paras 172–180).

Key Proposition: A film title consisting of a generic or laudatory word is protectable in passing off only on proof that its primary meaning has been displaced in the minds of cinemagoers; box-office success, the same lead actor and director, a similar theme or media speculation do not establish such secondary meaning or make a later film a derivative work or ‘spiritual sequel’.

Background / Synopsis :

‘Queen’, starring Ms. Kangana Ranaut and directed by Mr. Vikas Bahl, was co-produced under a Co-Production Agreement (CPA) dated 9 August 2012 between Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (now the Plaintiff) and Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., under which both jointly and equally own all intellectual property, including ‘Derivative Rights’ (Clauses 1.1.2, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 2.3).

The film was released on 7 March 2014, earned about Rs. 61.47 crores net in India and Rs. 95.04 crores worldwide against a budget of about Rs. 20 crores, and won the National Award for the Best Feature Film in Hindi.

By a Deed of Novation dated 20 January 2022 the Plaintiff acquired Phantom Films’ rights; under a composite scheme, Viacom 18’s film business and rights in ‘Queen’ came to vest in Digital 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 3).

Mr. Bahl (article of 11 December 2024) and Ms. Ranaut (interview of 15 January 2025) spoke of a ‘Queen 2’; media reports in August 2025 and April 2026 described a sequel.

The Plaintiff wrote to Mr. Bahl (28 May 2025) and to Jiostar (9 September 2025), issued caution notices (7 and 29 April 2026) and a cease-and-desist letter (12 May 2026); Jiostar replied on 21 April and 7 May 2026 that its film, then tentatively ‘Queen Forever’, was an independent original work.

The suit was filed against Jiostar (Defendant No. 1) and Trigger Happy Entertainment (Defendant No. 2); on learning that the CPA rights vest in Digital 18, the plaint was amended under the order of 18 August 2026 to implead Digital 18 and to plead that Jiostar is a ‘veritable party’ to the CPA. The film is now titled ‘Queen Full Power’; the plaint also claims damages of Rs. 253.55 crores.

Relief sought in the Interim Application: temporary injunction against making or releasing ‘Queen Full Power’ or any sequel, prequel or derivative work of ‘Queen’, against use of its story, characters and underlying works, and disclosure of scripts and agreements.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the plaint independently pleads a case of passing off, or whether that claim is wholly anchored to the contractual claim.
• Whether ‘Queen Full Power’ is prima facie a derivative work, sequel or prequel of ‘Queen’.
• Whether the title ‘Queen’ has acquired secondary meaning so that its use in the Defendants’ title amounts to passing off.
• Whether the proposed film is a ‘spiritual sequel’ of ‘Queen’.
• Whether a common theme, the engagement of the same actor and director, or media and social media material make out passing off.
• Whether Jiostar is bound as a ‘veritable party’ to the novated CPA and whether breach of the CPA is made out.
• Whether irreparable injury and balance of convenience favour an injunction.

Submissions Of Parties :

Plaintiff (Phantom Studios):

The same title word, lead actress, director and theme of women’s self-discovery show the new film is a sequel or derivative work; interviews of Mr. Bahl and Ms. Ranaut confirm this.

Though no copyright subsists in a title alone, passing off lies (Krishika Lulla; Francis Day & Hunter); the twin tests of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion in Kanungo Media are met by 12 years of use, box-office figures and awards (also Sholay Media, Vishesh Films, K.M. Multani, Anil Kapoor Film Co.).

A ‘spiritual sequel’ need not continue the story (Cocktail/Cocktail 2, Good Newwz/Bad Newz, Love Aaj Kal); public perception, not the producer’s description, is decisive.

Jiostar is a veritable party to the CPA through the Reliance Industries group structure and its conduct in performing CPA functions (Cox and Kings; KKH Finvest; Utair Aviation).

In rejoinder: even a descriptive word can acquire secondary meaning (T.V. Venugopal; Tri-Star Pictures); media reports evidence actual confusion and are admissible for the fact that statements were made (Sandeep Kumar).

Defendant No. 1 (Jiostar) and Defendant No. 2 (Trigger Happy):

The suit is in substance contractual and styled a ‘Commercial Suit’, not a ‘Commercial IP Suit’; no final relief of passing off by title is sought (Cotton Corporation of India; Madan Gopal Rungta).

The film is a Mumbai-based thriller-drama with a largely Marathi cast and no romantic angle; themes and ideas are not protectable (R.G. Anand).

‘Queen’ is a common laudatory word with no secondary meaning; mere duration, turnover or promotion is insufficient (People Interactive; Pernod Ricard); goodwill of the actor and director is personal to them.

Media and social media material is speculative and additional documents are barred by Order XI CPC (Ambalal Sarabhai); Ms. Ranaut and Mr. Bahl were not impleaded; ‘spiritual sequel’ was raised only in rejoinder; Defendant No. 2 is not a party to the CPA.

Defendant No. 3 (Digital 18):

Digital 18 has no role in the impugned film; common shareholding does not make it and Jiostar one economic unit, and administrative emails do not meet the Cox and Kings test.

Unlike ‘Sholay’, ‘Queen’ has not displaced its primary meaning; anonymous social media posts have no probative value (Texas Precious Metals, Nordstrom, Echo Drain; Indian Express v. Fundamental Hospitality).

Court's Observations & Analysis :

• A spiritual sequel abandons narrative continuity while mirroring the soul of the original; it requires shared substantial elements, the same central theme, an express representation by the producer (often through the title) and some explicit callback such as a repeated song (Paras 121–123).
• The producers never represented any connection; the themes differ (first-time self-discovery by a young woman versus rediscovery by a mother and wife), and there is no callback (Paras 124–126).
• Held: ‘Queen Full Power’ is not a spiritual sequel of ‘Queen’. (Para 127)
• Re: Issue (v): Theme, actor/director, media and social media
• There is no copyright or monopoly in a theme or idea (R.G. Anand); anyone may make a film on a woman discovering her power and confidence (Paras 129, 132–133).
• Goodwill from a film also belongs to and travels with the actors and director; ‘Queen’ as a moniker is Ms. Ranaut’s personal achievement (Paras 136–139).
• The interviews of December 2024 and January 2025 predate the project, the duo was not impleaded, and their statements do not bind the producers (Paras 143–144).
• Newspaper reports are hearsay (Laxmi Raj Shetty, applied in Star (India) Ltd. v. Zee) and here are third-party speculation (Paras 148, 150).
• Social media posts are unreliable, often anonymous, and one relied-upon post displayed a fake ‘Queen 2’ poster; persuasive US District Court decisions were noted (Paras 152–159).
• Held: No actual confusion or likelihood of confusion is established, and the Plaintiff remains free to make its own sequel. (Paras 160, 165–166)
• Re: Issue (vi): Breach of the novated CPA / veritable party
• Even assuming Jiostar is a veritable party, there is no breach because the film is not a derivative work, sequel or prequel.
• Held: The veritable-party question was not decided and is left for trial. (Para 171)
• Re: Issue (vii): Trinity test, injury and balance of convenience

Decision & Directions :

Interim Application No. 5177 of 2026 dismissed. (Para 180)

Observations are prima facie and shall not affect the trial of the suit; costs of the Interim Application shall be costs in the suit. (Para 181)

No guidelines laid down; the question of permitting additional documents under Order XI CPC and the veritable-party issue were kept open for the appropriate stage. (Paras 151, 171).

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Common law tort of passing off – classic trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage; each must be established. (Para 172)
• Law of copyright – no copyright subsists in a film title alone; idea–expression dichotomy (no monopoly in theme, plot or idea).
• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Plaintiff not a registered proprietor of ‘Queen’, unlike the plaintiff in Vishesh Films.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 2 (pleadings to contain a concise statement of material facts); Order XI (bar on documents not filed with the plaint, issue kept open).

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
• Case Number(s): Interim Application No. 5177 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 97 of 2026
• Coram / Judges: Sandeep V. Marne, J. – Single Judge
• Counsel Appearances: For the Plaintiff: Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Senior Advocate and Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Naira Jejeebhoy, Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Ms. Samridhi Lodha, Ms. Nishtha Gupta, Ms. Shweta Jaydev, Ms. Nishi Doshi and Mr. Jai Sanyal i/b Rashmikant & Partners. For Defendant No. 1: Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Anand Mohan, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Aman Saraf, Mr. Vivek Dwivedi, Ms. Fatima Ali, Ms. Unnati Gambani and Ms. Sakshi Dube i/b Anand Naik & Co. For Defendant No. 2: Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Dhond, Mr. Vikramaditya Chavan, Ms. Udita Kanwar Chavan and Mr. Suryadeep Nanda i/b Willow Legal. For Defendant No. 3: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saloni Shah, Ms. Shivani Khanwilkar and Ms. Dhun Vinod Santosh i/b Khanwilkar & Shah Associates.

Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.