No Copyright Protection for Film Titles, Even with Registration: Bombay High Court

No Copyright Protection for Film Titles, Even with Registration: Bombay High Court

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has held that mere registration of a film title with a film association does not confer copyright protection, even if the title is registered with industry bodies like the Western India Film Producers Association (WIFPA).

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Sunil Darshan Saberwal, produced the Hindi feature film “Lootere” in 1993 under the banner Shree Krishna International. He later registered the title with WIFPA and claimed exclusive rights over it. In September 2022, he discovered that a web series titled “Lootere” was being promoted by JioStar India (formerly Star India Pvt. Ltd.) for release on Disney+ Hotstar.

Despite being aware of the web series since 2022, the plaintiff filed the present suit only in March 2024, shortly before its release. He argued that his registration of the title “Lootere” and his copyright ownership of the 1993 film entitled him to restrain the defendants from using the same title.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the release and streaming of the web series. The defendants opposed, arguing that film titles are not copyrightable under the Copyright Act, 1957, and that association-based registrations had no binding effect on non-members.

Issues

1. Whether registration of a film title with an association confers any statutory rights?

2. Whether a film title can be protected under copyright law?

Contentions of the Parties

• Plaintiff’s Contention: The plaintiff argued that registration of the title “Lootere” with WIFPA gave him exclusive rights over the title and that the defendants’ use amounted to copyright infringement.
• Defendant’s Contention: The defendants contended that no copyright subsists in a mere title and that private registrations with industry associations lack legal sanctity, especially against non-members.

Reasoning and Analysis

The single-judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Marne held that:

• “Mere registration of a film title with an association does not create any statutory right in favour of the plaintiff to restrain others from using it.”
• A film title does not constitute a “work” under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and therefore, no copyright can subsist in a mere title.
• Internal association registrations are purely private arrangements, enforceable only among members, and carry no statutory recognition in law.
• The plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit and the fact that the web series had already been released and was actively streaming further weakened his claim.

Implications

This ruling reinforces the settled legal position that copyright protection cannot extend to film titles. It also clarifies that registrations with industry associations do not bind non-members and have no legal effect beyond private arrangements.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s interim injunction plea, holding that he had failed to establish a prima facie case for copyright infringement.

Representation

• In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi with Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Thomas George, Ms. Tanvi Sinha, Mr. Navankur Pathak, Ms. Neeti Nihal & Ms. Bhargavi Baradhwaj, Advocates.