By Lucy Rana and Nitika Sinha
Introduction
In a significant intellectual property ruling delivered in August 2025, the Bombay High Court in Sunil S/o Darshan Saberwal vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2025: BHC-OS:13777 [1] reaffirmed a foundational principle of Indian Copyright Law that a film title, by itself, is not entitled to copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. While disputes over titles are common in the entertainment industry, courts have consistently resisted attempts to monopolize titles through copyright claims.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff was the producer of the Hindi feature film Lootere, released in 1993. He claimed copyright ownership in the cinematograph film and asserted that the title Lootere had been registered with film producers’ association. In 2024, the defendants released a web series titled Lootere on a digital streaming platform. Aggrieved by using the identical title, the plaintiff approached Bombay High Court seeking an injunction, alleging copyright infringement and claiming exclusive rights over the title.
The plaintiff’s primary contention was that his prior use and registration of the title Lootere, coupled with copyright in the original film, entitled him to restrain the defendants from using the same title for their web series. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that a film title is not protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and that registrations with producers’ association is a private arrangement and does not have any sanctity in law.
Held
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for interim relief and made certain crucial observations that reaffirm long-standing principles of copyright law.
Firstly, the Court held that a film title does not qualify as a “work” under Section 13[2] of the Act. Copyright protection extends to original literacy, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematographic films and sound recordings. A title, whether consisting of a single word or a short phrase, lacks the originality and substantive expression necessary to qualify as a protective work. It merely identifies the work and does not embody creative content in itself.
Secondly, the court rejected the argument that registration of a title with film producers or writers’ associations create enforceable legal rights. The court observed that such registrations are private arrangements intended to regulate internal industry practices. They do not enjoy statutory recognition and cannot be enforced against third parties, particularly those who are not members of the concerned association.
Thirdly, the Court examined whether there was any copying of protectable content. It was found that the plaintiff’s 1993 film and the defendant’s web series were entirely different in theme, storyline and treatment. In the absence of any similarity in the underlying work, the mere use of a common title could not amount to copyright infringement.
Similar Approach in International Jurisdictions
International jurisdictions reflect a similar reluctance to extend copyright protection to movie titles. In the United States, disputes involving films and television titles released across studios and streaming platforms are routinely resolved under trademark or unfair competition law rather than copyright, with courts consistently treating titles as short phrases ineligible of copyright protection.
Reinforced in Patten v. Superior Talking Pictures, 8F. Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1934)[3], the US court held that a title alone is not copyrightable, emphasizing that copyright protection does not extend to mere names or titles unaccompanied by substantial literary expression. A similar approach has been adopted in the United Kingdom, wherein Exxon Corporation v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd., (1982)[4], the court held that a single word or short phrase, lacking sufficient literary quality or originality, cannot qualify as a literary work for copyright protection. These decisions affirm consistent international position that protection for film titles, if any, must be sought under trademark rather than copyright laws.
The Correct Route
The exclusion of titles from copyright protection is not accidental, it flows from both statutory design and policy considerations. Copyright law protects original expressions, not ideas, names or labels. Titles generally consist of common words or short phrases and are intended to describe or identify a work rather than express creativity in a substantive form. If exclusive rights were granted over titles through copyright, it would lead to unreasonable restrictions on creative freedom and competition. Other similar precedents like the ‘Desi Boyz’ [5] case where it was claimed that the title was protected under copyright, based on its use in a registered literary work. The court unequivocally rejected this contention and held that copyright does not subsist in titles, as titles do not meet the statutory definition of literary work. The recurring theme in ‘Lootere’ and ‘Desi Boyz’ decision is the recognition that Copyright is not the appropriate tool to protect film titles. Where a title is distinctive and functions as a brand identifier, trademark laws offer a more suitable and effective form of protection.
Trademark registration, particularly in relation to entertainment services, can provide exclusivity if the title has acquired distinctiveness and can distinguish the producer’s services from those of others. Similarly, actions for passing off may be available where the use of a similar mark causes confusion due to goodwill associated with an earlier mark. From a practical standpoint, producers and content creators must therefore adopt a multi-pronged protection strategy, combining trademark registration, contractual safeguards and careful branding, rather than relying solely on copyright claims.
Implications for the Entertainment Industry
The Lootere ruling sends a clear signal to stakeholders in the entertainment industry. Courts will not recognize exclusive rights in titles merely because a work was released earlier or because a title was registered with an industry association. Without statutory backing or evidence of consumer confusion under trademark principles, such claims are unlikely to succeed.
For producers, this judgement underscores the importance of early trademark assessment and registration where title exclusivity is commercially significant. It also highlights the need for realistic expectations about the scope of copyright protection and the risk of overreliance on informal industry mechanisms.
Conclusion
The Lootere judgement highlights an important distinction between industry practice and legal entitlement. It is the recognition that copyright is not the appropriate tool to protect film titles.
It reinforces doctrinal clarity, preserves creative freedom and discourages attempts to expand copyright beyond its statutory limits. For the entertainment industry, it serves as a timely reminder that protecting titles requires the correct legal strategy, grounded in Trademark Law, passing off principles, and sound contractual practices, rather than misplaced reliance on Copyright.
In today’s content-driven economy, smart IP strategy is as important as creativity itself. Navigating these overlapping rights demands both legal precision and commercial foresight, making early advisory and strategic planning essential to safeguarding creative and commercial interests in an increasingly competitive market.
Dilreet Thakur , intern at S.S.Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[3] Patten v. Superior Talking Pictures
[4] Exxon Corporation v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd.
[5] Krishika Lulla & others Vs Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta & anr.