Film & Web Series Titles: Why Trademark Outweighs Copyright

Introduction

A movie’s name plays a very crucial role in the film industry acting as its identity. During the present times, India has transcended to OTT era where individuals have access to variety of content from domestic to international content creators and titles here often acquire independent commercial value. For example, the title, “Game of thrones” instantly proposes a narrative in the minds of the people irrespective of them being familiar with episodes of such web series. Thus, it has become very vital that even the titles be protected as intellectual properties and proprietors of the same be granted rights respectively.

The conundrum however is whether titles can be granted protection as intellectual property under prevailing IP laws in India. The common perception among masses of people is that the titles of their work enjoy the same mantle of protection as their films, script or the music however, such is not the case. The Indian Judiciary has time and again dispelled this assumption. “Supreme Court in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Devkatta (2016), have consistently ruled that titles cannot attract copyright, since they do not qualify as “works” under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.”[i]

In the present era where OTT platforms have accessible content from all over the world which might have similar or identical titles such issue can prove to be very problematic which can create more perplexities and undermine the brand identities.

“In India, recent case of Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd and others, famously known as the Lootere dispute underscores the same issue which was listed before the Bombay High Court. A producer of a 1993 film “Lootere” sought to restrain Disney Hotstar from streaming a web series under the same title. The Court reaffirmed the principle that copyright law does not extend to mere titles, and registration with producer associations cannot create statutory rights. This case underscores the limits of copyright and contractual practices, pushing the debate firmly into the domain of trademark law and passing off.”[ii]

Limited Protection under Copyrights

At first instance, copyright may seem to be the natural repository of protection for film and web series titles and many producers believe that such rights do apply to the title of their cinematograph film. However, the statutory scheme of Copyright Act 1957 makes it very evident that such assumption is false. Section 13 of the Act incarcerates copyrights to three specific categories of work which are:

• Original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works

• cinematograph films

• sound recordings.

Therefore, a title which merely consists of a word or phrase does not qualify as “work” within the meaning construed under “Section 2(y) of Copyright Act 1957”[iii] and therefore does not get any copyright protection.

“The Supreme Court in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Devkatta (2016) emphatically held that copyright can’t subsist in a mere title, in that instance, “Desi Boys.” The Court stated that titles are often too brief, commonplace, or insubstantial to qualify as original literary works.”[iv]

“The Privy Council in Francis Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century Fox (1939) expressed similar reservations, underscoring that a title standing alone is incapable of constituting a protectable work.”[v]

The rational of courts behind this narrow approach lies in the policy itself. This recognition of titles in copyrights if granted shall lead to monopolies over simple and ordinary words and phrases which are commonly used by general public thereby inhibiting rather than fostering creativity.

For instance, if copyrights are granted over film titles such as Animal, Dilwale, Don, Barfi, War, etc. then producers of these films will attain exclusivity rights over these terms which would preclude others from employing same words in a complete different creative venture.

“The Bombay High Court’s recent decision in the Lootere dispute is an apt reaffirmation. Although the plaintiff undisputedly held copyright in the 1993 cinematograph film Lootere, the Court clarified that such rights did not extend to the film’s title. Since the Disney Hotstar web series shared only the name and not the storyline, characters, or underlying literary work, no infringement could be established.”[vi]

 Trademark Law: The real protector

The Trademark Act of 1999 grants a more robust protection mechanism to titles given the inadequacies in the prevailing Copyright laws in India. “Section 2(zb) states that―trade mark means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours;”[vii] Therefore, a title which is distinctive and not identical or similar to another can indeed function as a source identifier and qualify for protection under trademark law.

The trademark act 1999 further provides the remedy of passing off. It protects the goodwill of a title which may be unregistered but is associated with a producer’s work. The unauthorised use of such title which may unregistered but has reputation and a strong goodwill will cause confusion among general public. “The Delhi High Court in Kanungo Media v. RGV Film Factory (2007)”[viii] and “Madras High Court in R. Radha Krishnan v. A.R. Murugadoss (2013) reinforced that while copyright in titles is untenable, producers may nonetheless succeed on the basis of passing off, provided they can establish prior use and reputation.”[ix]

The protection of Sholay Media exemplifies that the courts are rather willing to provide protection to titles which are distinctive under the ambit of Trademark law in India.

Thus, in Indian legal framework, the trademark laws provide protection to film titles through the application of its statutory provisions and passing off provisions rather than copyright laws which are prevailing in India. It is not only prudent but also indispensable for the producers of films or web series to register their distinctive titles under trademark protection in this era which is defined by OTT platforms and transnational content circulation.

The Lootere Case, Bombay High Court 2025

In the matter of Sunil v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025)[x] the High Court of Bombay pronounced a judgement which is an instructive example of the growing complexities for title protection. The plaintiff, had released a movie ‘Lootere’ in the year 1993 and secured its copyright registration in the cinematograph film. He further registered its title ‘Lootere’ with the Western India Film Producers Association in September 2010. However, in 2022, he found out that Disney Hotstar was going to stream a web series on its platform which was titled ‘Lootere’. He alleged that it amounted to infringement of his proprietary rights over that title and sought for injunction in order to stop the platform from releasing the series under its name and filed the suit in March 2024 just before the release of web series.

The plaintiff primarily submitted that copyright ownership in his film extended and included the film title too and that the registration with Western India Film Producers Association granted him enforcement rights over the title. The court however, dismissed the suit citing Supreme court’s ruling in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Devkatta which reaffirmed that a mere title does not qualify as “work” under section 13 of the Act and thus no copyrights subsist in the title itself.

It further clarified that registering a title with an association does not give rise to any legal rights under the Copyright Act 1957. It held that associations like Western India Film Producers Association are private agreements which are binding only on the private parties to the agreement and since Star India was not part of such association, it was not affected by such rules. It was also noted that the story and characters of the web series were in no way similar to that of movie. The court also took into account the delay on plaintiff’s part. He knew about the series since 2022 but he only approached the court a few days before its release which was almost after 2 years and this weakened his case significantly. The court dismissed the matter.

This judgement underscores the limited scope and utility of copyrights and registrations in associations for title protection. It also highlighted that had it been a trademark registration for the title, the proprietor of that mark would have been entitled to protection of title and even passing off claim.

Emerging perplexities in the OTT era

The advent of OTT platforms in India like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Hotstar etc. has profoundly reshaped the entire entertainment industry from a traditional mode of television to a more advanced, dynamic ecosystem which prioritizes digital accessibility and global reach which aggravates the obstacles encountered in legal protection of titles at present. Since the content available on OTT platforms caters to a Global audience, titles which operated in a particular country are now exposed to worldwide audiences which augments the risks of duplicating, perplexity and dilution. While copyright laws provide no remedy whereas association registrations are confined to the parties who ratify such agreement. This makes these highly inadequate mechanisms in this digital era.

This makes the reliance on trademark law and passing off greater than ever. However, this creates a gigantic threshold of distinctiveness or dissimilarity among numerous film or web series titles. Further, consumer perception in the digital age amplifies the stakes. A title today is more than a name; it operates as a brand, influencing marketing, merchandising, and audience recall. The economic value of titles has thus increased, but the legal framework lags behind in offering comprehensive protection.

The Way Forward

In contemporary entertainment industry where content is simultaneously consumed across the world through OTT platforms, reliance on reactive legal mechanisms is inadequate. Therefore, a new and proactive legal strategy is much needed.

This entails the adoption of trademark protection for the film or web series titles, logos, trade dress in advance. It would boost the registration compliance and deter the potential infringers. In addition to this, focus should be given to vigilant monitoring of these infringements both nationally and internationally.

Producers must realize the need of getting their trademark registration filed internationally as by the medium of OTT, films are accessible to international audience very easily after its release. Thus, in order to protect their proprietary rights in the title, they should file for international registrations.

Conclusion

At the present times, there is a very narrow and limited scope of protection which is provided to the titles of films and web series in India. The copyright laws are not suitable for it whereas the trademark law and passing off are the real avenue of protection. Judicial consensus, beginning with early precedents and reaffirmed by the Apex Court in “Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Devkatta (2016)”[xi], makes clear that titles cannot qualify as “works” under the Copyright Act, 1957.  The Bombay HC in Sunil v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. underscored that copyright and industry registrations provide no enforceable statutory protection against infringement.

The entertainment industry with the advent of OTT platforms have seen a significant growth not only in its economy but also in infringement disputes. These day titles are circulated worldwide due to Ott platforms which makes it substantial to register them. The Trademark Act 1999 coupled with passing off rights provides the protection needed for titles in India. Distinctive franchises can get their titles registered under the act which shall grant the owners proprietary rights over such titles. Even if their titles are unregistered, they can make a plea of goodwill and consumer association may succeed in passing off. Indian policymakers need to consider introducing amendments which provides a wide scope of protection specifically for the titles. Until then the judgement passed by Bombay HC in Sunil v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors serves as a cautionary reminder that copyrights merely protect the script and cometographic film however it is the trademark laws which provide a wider scope of protection to titles.

Author: - Utkarsh Sharma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[i]Krishika Lulla and Ors. vs. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta and Ors. (15.10.2015 - SC) : MANU/SC/1174/2015

[ii] 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2937

[iii] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1367/5/a1957-14.pdf

[iv] Krishika Lulla and Ors. vs. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta and Ors. (15.10.2015 - SC) : MANU/SC/1174/2015

[v] 1939 SCC OnLine PC 50 : (1940) 52 LW 10 : AIR 1940 PC 55

[vi] 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2937

[vii] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1367/5/a1957-14.pdf

[viii] 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10639

[ix] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115718142/?utmv 

[x] 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2937

[xi] Krishika Lulla and Ors. vs. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta and Ors. (15.10.2015 - SC) : MANU/SC/1174/2015