A film’s title often conveys its initial impression as it defines the essence of the narrative and captures the viewer’s interest. Some movie titles have over time, become renowned, influencing pop culture and creating enduring memories on audiences. However, movie titles, in addition to their creative appeal, have commercial value and influences marketing potential, audience recall and recognition. Given their immense creative appeal and commercial significance, it is essential to recognize and protect such titles as valuable intellectual assets.
In India, Section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957 states that cinematographic films, among other classes of works, are entitled to copyright protection. However, the protection so accorded does not extend to the titles of such films per se, the reason being the title by itself does not qualify to be described as a “work” capable of being granted copyright protection under the provisions of the Act. The said aspect was highlighted by the court in the case of Krishika Lulla & Ors. v. Shyam Vithal Rao Devkatta, where the court observed that the title of the work by itself is insufficient and lacks originality and does not qualify as a copyrightable work.
While registration of movie titles and scripts with associations like the Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association (IMPPA), Film and Television Producers’ Guild of India, Western Indian Film Producers Association (WIFPA) etc, is an option available to the producers and writers, to establish priority of adoption to the titles, it does not confer any statutory protection over the same. It merely offers limited protection against misuse/ adoption of a similar title by other members, who are bound by the association’s rules and contractual obligations.
This position was recently reaffirmed by the Bombay High Court in Sunil v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. In this case, the plaintiff had registered the title of the film “LOOTERE” with the Western India Film Producers Association and had been renewing it from time to time and separate registration was secured for the categories of feature film, TV series, web series and web film with Producers’ Association. In the year 2022, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants upon becoming aware of the trailer of a web series titled “LOOTERE” being streamed on Disney Hotstar (now Jio Hotstar), seeking to restrain them from releasing the series under the said title. The series was eventually released in 2024, following which the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings against the defendants, alleging copyright infringement. The plaintiffs in the said case sought a temporary injunction to prevent the defendants from
1. [Criminal Appeal No. 258 and 259 of 2013] SC
2. Intellepedia, Krishika Lulla & Ors. vs Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta & Anr. https://www.bananaip.com/ ; https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/copyright-title-literary-work-india-krishika-lulla-case-law/
3. Lucy Rana & Pooja Thakur, Film-Titles-and-Their-Protection-Registration-of-title-by-producers-and-writers-is-therefore-becoming
4. 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2937
producing, and/ or releasing, and or exploiting the title “LOOTERE” owned and registered by the plaintiff.
The Court opined that the plaintiff could restrain others from producing a film, web series, or television programme only to the extent that such work reproduced the script or story of his film, and not merely on the ground of similarity in titles. The mere registration of a title with the Producers’ Association or any similar body does not create a statutory right enabling the plaintiff to prevent others from using the same title. The Court reiterated that copyright subsists in the cinematographic work film itself, and as long as basic premise, theme and storyline of the two works are distinct, mere similarity in their titles cannot give rise to an actionable claim under the Copyright Act.
Since film titles, by themselves, do not qualify for copyright protection and mere registration with industry associations confers no statutory rights in a court of law, trademark protection emerges as the only viable path to safeguard a film’s identity. It requires establishing that the title has acquired a secondary meaning and has been uniquely associated with the applicant’s services. The said principle was elucidated in the case of Sholay Media and Entertainment v Parag M. Sanghavi, where the court, after due consideration of the facts, observed that the mark ‘SHOLAY’ had acquired secondary meaning and the defendants were restrained from using the name. In Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. V RGV Film Factory, the court laid down guidelines to determine whether the film title has acquired secondary meaning before granting trademark protection to the title.
To effectively secure trademark protection for single film titles, producers and production houses must direct efforts towards extensive promotion and marketing of such titles across all platforms, even before the release of the film. Doing so would help gain recognition and add distinctiveness to the mark, thereby improving the chances of acceptance of the mark. The courts, while deciding if the title has acquired secondary meaning does take into consideration the extent of time for which it has been in use, the expenses incurred in conducting promotional activities, etc. Failing to timely secure exclusive rights to a title exposes it to risks such as imitation, counterfeit merchandising and brand dilution, all of which will eventually erode both the creative and commercial value vested in it.
In addition to these risks, the emergence of AI-generated movie titles, widespread creation of fan fictions and parody titles, have added layers of complexity to the protection of titles. AI-driven tools that generate film titles based on prompts such as the genre, theme, or emotion etc, are typically trained on a vast database of existing works. As a result, the risk that they may inadvertently produce titles that are identical or deceptively similar to those already well-known in the market always persists. Similarly, in case of fan fictions where fans publish alternate storylines using modified film titles and where parody titles are used for humour or pure commentary, the adaptations tend to blur creative boundaries and can
5. SCC ONLINE, No copyright on film title’: Bombay High Court denies relief to ‘LOOTERE’ film producers against web series with same title, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/21/bom-hc-no-copyright-on-film-title/#:~:text=’No%20Copyright%20On%20Film%20Title,(‘Copyright%20Act’).
6. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11644
7. 2007 (34) PTC 591 (Del)
even be commercialised, resulting in the dilution and confusion among the public as to the original source or affiliation. These developments and their inherent challenges underscore the need for producers to adopt a comprehensive IP strategy that extends beyond merely securing trademark registration, it also requires vigilant monitoring of digital platforms and proactive enforcement measures to strengthen and maintain the commercial and creative integrity of film titles.
In today’s digital ecosystem, where films transcend geographical and cultural boundaries and thrive across multiple streaming platforms, social media, and global markets, the significance of protecting film titles as trademarks to preserve the commercial interests of the producers has become paramount. Each film embodies multiple intellectual property elements ranging from its script and music to its visual design and promotional content, all of which contribute to its distinct commercial identity. Protection of film titles not only prevents misuse through counterfeit merchandise and piracy but also strengthens brand identity and consumer recall in digital and social marketing spaces and ensures that it remains an enduring and enforceable asset in an era of rapid content proliferation.
By Malavika K
