Disputes over film and web-series titles are becoming increasingly common in India’s entertainment industry. In Sunil S/o Darshan Saberwal Versus Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, Controversy arose around the title “Lootere”, where the producer of a 1993 Hindi film by the same name sought to restrain Disney+Hotstar and other defendants from streaming a web-series carrying that title.
The Bombay High Court, in its judgment delivered on 18 August 2025 by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, examined whether copyright subsists in a film title, whether registration with film-producers’ associations creates enforceable rights, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction halting the web-series.The Court had to decide whether the plaintiff could claim exclusive rights in the title “Lootere” based on copyright or association registration, and if so, whether interim relief in the form of an injunction against the web-series was justified.
The Case:
The plaintiff, produced the film Lootere in 1993 and later obtained a copyright certificate for the cinematograph film. The title “Lootere” was also registered with various film-producers associations, renewing it to cover feature films, TV serials, web-series, and web films.
In September 2022, the plaintiff discovered the trailer of a web-series titled “Lootere” set to stream on Disney+Hotstar, and issued a legal notice. The defendants responded but continued production. The web-series premiered on 22 March 2024 and has since been available for streaming.The plaintiff approached Bombay High Court seeking injunction against the defendants from producing or streaming the web-series.
Court deliberated on various issues, mainly whether copyright subsist in a mere film title under the Copyright Act, 1957 and do registrations with film-producers’ associations create legally enforceable rights against non-members?
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
No copyright in mere titles: The Court relied on Apex Court’s decision in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam V. Devkatta and reaffirmed that film titles, being ordinary words, do not attract copyright protection unless exceptionally original.
Association registration not enforceable against non-members: Registrations with producers’ associations are contractual arrangements binding only within the associations. They do not create statutory rights against outsiders like the defendants.
Industry practice insufficient: Duplication of titles in the film industry is common, and mere identity of titles does not amount to copyright infringement.
Delay fatal to injunction: The plaintiff waited for very long after first objecting before filing the suit. By the time of hearing, the web-series had already been streaming, making the relief sought impractical.
Prima facie case not established: The plaintiff neither demonstrated exclusive statutory rights in the title nor pleaded passing off or trademark infringement. Without a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience did not arise.The Court declined to restrain the defendants, noting that the plaintiff may pursue damages but cannot prevent the continued streaming of the web-series.
The key takeaways from the judgment, can be summarised as , Titles usually lack copyright protection. Indian law does not recognize ordinary film titles as “works” under the Copyright Act and Association registrations are weak shields. While useful as industry notices, such registrations cannot be enforced against non-members in court.
Protection of Movie Titles:
To effectively protect a movie name, producers should move beyond association registrations and rely on statutory mechanisms. The most reliable method is trademark registration of the title under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly when the title is distinctive and intended for use across multiple works or merchandise. In addition, producers should act promptly on discovering potential misuse, since delay can defeat injunction claims. Together, these measures provide a far stronger and enforceable shield for safeguarding film and web-series titles than reliance on copyright law, which generally does not protect titles.
The Lootere case is a reminder that copyright is ill-suited to protect film titles. For the entertainment industry, the judgment signals that association registrations, while valuable internally, carry little weight in court against outsiders. Legal protection of titles must be built on trademarks, goodwill, and timely enforcement.
The decision is a reaffirmation of settled principles, that a party cannot claim any copyright in the title. The works in which copyright subsist has been set out in Section 13(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and which consists of the original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work; cinematographic film; and sound recording. A title of a work cannot be considered to be the subject-matter of copyright law because a title by itself is in the nature of a name of a work and is not complete by itself, without the work.
LAW-IP AND MORE 