Phantom Studios India Private Limited sought a temporary injunction to restrain Jiostar India Private Limited and Trigger Happy Entertainment Limited from producing, releasing, or exploiting the film 'Queen Full Power', alleging it constitutes passing off and breach of a Co-Production Agreement (CPA) related to the 2014 film 'Queen'. The Court found the Plaintiff failed to establish that the title 'Queen' had acquired secondary meaning in relation to films or that there was a likelihood of confusion, dismissing the interim application.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Phantom Studios India Private Limited (Plaintiff) claims 50% ownership in the intellectual property rights of the film 'Queen' (2014) under a novated Co-Production Agreement (CPA) originally executed with Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. on 9 August 2012. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Jiostar India Private Limited (Defendant No.1) and Trigger Happy Entertainment Limited (Defendant No.2) are producing a film titled 'Queen Full Power' as a sequel, prequel, remake, adaptation, or derivative work of 'Queen' without its consent, thereby committing passing off and breaching the CPA. Defendant No.3, Digital 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., is alleged to be the successor to Viacom 18's rights under the CPA.
Key Facts
- The film 'Queen' was conceived and developed by Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. in 2012, with Ms. Kangana Ranaut as lead actress and Mr. Vikas Bahl as director
- Phantom Films and Viacom 18 entered into a Co-production Agreement dated 9 August 2012, under which they jointly and equally own all intellectual property rights in the film
- By way of Deed of Novation for Amendment dated 20 January 2022, Plaintiff Phantom acquired all rights and obligations of Phantom Films in the film, claiming 50% ownership
- The film 'Queen' was theatrically released across India on 7 March 2014, registering a net collection of approximately Rs. 61.47 crores at the Indian box office and Rs. 95.04 crores worldwide
- The film received the National Award for Best Feature Film in Hindi and various other industry awards
- In early 2025, Plaintiff encountered media reports and interviews suggesting work on a sequel to 'Queen' was in progress, including a January 2025 video interview with Ms. Kangana Ranaut
- On 28 May 2025, Plaintiff addressed a clarificatory letter to Mr. Vikas Bahl seeking confirmation that no sequel or derivative work was being developed
- On 9 September 2025, Plaintiff issued an advocate's letter to Defendant No.1 and Mr. Vikas Bahl requesting written confirmation that no sequel or derivative work was underway
- On 7 April 2026, Plaintiff issued a formal caution notice to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Vikas Bahl reiterating ownership of 50% intellectual property rights and stating that a sequel cannot be made without Plaintiff's consent
- Defendant No.1 (Jiostar) responded to the caution notice on 21 April 2026, claiming the proposed film 'Queen Forever' was an original creative work with no connection to 'Queen'
- Plaintiff filed the present Suit initially against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, later amending the plaint to implead Digital 18 as Defendant No.3
Procedural History
- 7 April 2026: Formal caution notice issued by Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Vikas Bahl
- 9 September 2025: Advocate's letter issued by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 and Mr. Vikas Bahl
- 28 May 2025: Clarificatory letter addressed by Plaintiff to Mr. Vikas Bahl
- Suit filed: Date not explicitly stated but inferred from notices as circa April 2026
- Interim Application No. 5177 of 2026: Filed by Plaintiff seeking temporary injunction
- 21 September 2026: Judgment reserved
- 14 October 2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The Plaintiff sought, inter alia, a temporary injunction restraining Defendants from making, developing, producing, shooting, completing, releasing, distributing, broadcasting, streaming, marketing, promoting, advertising, exploiting or otherwise the second installment of the film by way of a sequel, prequel, remake, adaptation or derivative work under the title 'Queen Full Power' or any other title, without prior written consent. The Plaintiff also sought disclosure of agreements, script, concept note, character treatment, synopsis and other development documents relating to the impugned film.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for passing off based on the allegation that the title 'Queen' had acquired secondary significance in relation to films, such that the use of the same title in 'Queen Full Power' would create a likelihood of confusion among the public, and whether the alleged film 'Queen Full Power' constituted a derivative work under the novated CPA.
Arguments Presented
For the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff, led by Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Senior Advocate, argued that the title 'Queen' had acquired secondary meaning due to the film's iconic status, continuous use for over 12 years, extensive advertising and promotion, substantial box office collections (Rs. 61.47 crores net in India), National Award win, and cultural influence. Reliance was placed on Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory & Ors. to assert that the title had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill. The Plaintiff contended that the use of 'Queen' in 'Queen Full Power' would cause confusion as the public would associate it with Plaintiff's film, citing public utterances by Ms. Kangana Ranaut and Mr. Vikas Bahl suggesting a sequel was in development. It was further argued that Defendant No.1 was bound by the CPA as a veritable party due to its conduct in performing contractual obligations, relying on Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
For the Respondent/State
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate for Defendant No.1, countered that 'Queen' is a common, generic, and laudatory English word denoting high feminine virtue, incapable of exclusive appropriation without proof of displaced primary meaning. He argued that numerous films use 'Queen' in their titles (e.g., 'Queen of Jhansi', 'Queen Elizabeth'), and OTT platforms show multiple results for the term, negating likelihood of confusion. Reliance was placed on People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. to assert that high sales and expenses alone do not establish secondary meaning, and on Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Karanveer Singh Chhabra to hold that extensive use of a descriptive term does not justify exclusivity unless primary meaning is displaced. Mr. Kadam emphasized that the stories, plots, and themes of 'Queen' (a Punjabi girl's European honeymoon journey) and 'Queen Full Power' (a Marathi woman's kidnapping thriller) are completely dissimilar, negating any claim of derivative work. He further contended that Plaintiff failed to establish proprietary interest in the title 'Queen' per se and that engagement of the same lead actor and director does not confer protectable goodwill.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the Plaintiff's suit comprised twin actions for passing off and breach of contract, with the passing off claim hinging on the title 'Queen' acquiring secondary meaning. Referring to People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that mere duration of use, turnover, or marketing expenditure is insufficient to prove acquisition of secondary meaning for a descriptive term like 'Queen'. The Court observed: "The word 'Queen' is a laudatory and commonly used English term, typically employed to suggest notions of excellence, heritage, or national identity." It emphasized that secondary meaning requires the word to have lost its primary meaning and acquired a distinct association exclusively with the Plaintiff's goods or services in the public mind.
The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that 'Queen' had acquired secondary significance. It noted: "When the word 'queen' is searched on Google, what is prominently shown in the result are many other things including the legendary British rock band 'Queen'. Even in relation to films, the moment the word 'queen' is uttered, Plaintiff's film 'Queen' may not immediately come to the mind of Indians as the word has been used in several other films, both before and after Plaintiff's film." The Court highlighted that OTT platforms like Netflix and Prime Video yield multiple results for 'Queen', including web series and films unrelated to Plaintiff's work, demonstrating the absence of exclusive association.
Regarding likelihood of confusion, the Court held that the test completely failed given the generic nature of the title and the plethora of existing uses. It stated: "Since the word 'queen' is used in several films and programs across India and across the world, there is no question of the same acquiring any distinctiveness. There is no question of the primary meaning of the word 'queen' getting displaced even to a slightest extent by virtue of success of and accolades received by the film 'Queen'." The Court further noted that the stories, plots, and themes of the two films are entirely different - 'Queen' revolves around a young Punjabi unmarried girl's journey abroad, while 'Queen Full Power' is a kidnapping thriller set in Mumbai with no romantic angle - negating any claim of derivative work under the CPA.
The Court distinguished Vishesh Films (P) Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., relied upon by the Plaintiff, on three grounds: (1) Plaintiff is not the registered owner of the trademark in 'Queen'; (2) except for the 2014 film, there has been no sequel/prequel/derivative work made by Plaintiff using the title 'Queen' to develop a strong brand identity; and (3) there were no past negotiations between the parties for making a derivative work based on the 2014 film. The Court concluded that the ratio of Vishesh Films has no application to the present case.
The Verdict
The Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for passing off or contractual breach. The Court dismissed the Interim Application for temporary injunction, holding that the title 'Queen' has not acquired secondary meaning in relation to films and that there is no likelihood of confusion between the titles of 'Queen' and 'Queen Full Power'. No costs were awarded in the interim application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
High Threshold for Generic Film Titles
Practitioners must recognize that generic or laudatory film titles like 'Queen', 'King', or 'Hero' face an exceptionally high threshold for acquiring secondary meaning. Mere box office success, award wins, or continuous use over a decade are insufficient without evidence that the primary meaning of the word has been displaced in the public mind. As held in this judgment and Pernod Ricard, extensive use of a descriptive term does not justify exclusivity unless it now serves as a source identifier exclusively pointing to the plaintiff's goods or services.
Story and Theme Similarity is Essential
For passing off claims based on film title, substantial similarity in story, plot, theme, or central idea is indispensable. The Court emphasized that where the narratives are completely dissimilar - as between a European honeymoon journey and a Mumbai-based kidnapping thriller - no action for passing off can succeed, regardless of title similarity or shared cast/crew. This aligns with the principle that ideas and themes are not protectable; only their specific expression is.
OTT Platforms Complicate Secondary Meaning Claims
The proliferation of OTT platforms significantly undermines claims of secondary meaning for common words. When a search for 'Queen' on Netflix or Prime Video yields multiple unrelated films and web series, it demonstrates that the term does not exclusively conjure a single source in the public mind. Lawyers advising film producers must now consider digital platform search results as critical evidence in assessing whether a title has acquired the necessary exclusivity for passing off protection.
Burden Lies on Plaintiff to Show Exclusive Association
The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that when the public encounters the title, they associate it exclusively with the plaintiff's film and no other. This requires concrete evidence such as consumer surveys, brand recognition studies, or consistent third-party references showing that the title 'Queen' immediately and solely brings to mind Phantom Studios' film. Speculative reliance on media reports, social media posts, or unverified interviews is insufficient, as the Court held such material lacks probative value to establish confusion or secondary meaning.
