Summary
Phantom Studios India Private Limited, co-owner of the 2014 film Queen, sued Jiostar India Private Limited and Trigger Happy Entertainment Limited to stop the release of Queen Full Power, alleging passing off based on the film title and breach of the Queen co-production agreement. The Bombay High Court compared the synopsis of the new film with the original and found a kidnapping thriller with no common story, theme or characters. It held that 'queen' is a common word that has not acquired secondary meaning even for films, and refused the temporary injunction. The ruling matters because it sets a high bar for film title passing off claims and rejects the idea that a shared actress, director and one common word can create a spiritual sequel.
Background
A National Award-winning film that earned Rs 95.04 crore worldwide on a Rs 20 crore budget has now been asked to protect a single word of its title, twelve years after release. The Queen Full Power passing off dispute reached the Bombay High Court as a fight over who owns the afterglow of a cult classic.
Phantom Studios India Private Limited (“Phantom Studios”), formerly Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd., co-owns the intellectual property in the 2014 film Queen with Digital 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. (“Digital 18”), which holds the film business of Viacom 18. Their rights flow from a Co-Production Agreement dated 9 August 2012 (“CPA”), novated on 20 January 2022, which covers derivative rights including sequels, prequels and remakes. The film starred Kangana Ranaut and was directed by Vikas Bahl.
In 2024 and 2025, interviews by the actress and the director hinted at a “Queen 2”. Phantom Studios issued notices to Jiostar India Private Limited (“Jiostar”) and Trigger Happy Entertainment Limited (“Trigger Happy”), who are co-producing a film now titled Queen Full Power with the same lead actress and director. Both replied that the film is an original work. Phantom Studios then filed a commercial suit for passing off based on the film title and for breach of the CPA, seeking a temporary injunction and Rs 253.55 crore in damages. Digital 18 was added as a defendant after it emerged that the Viacom 18 rights vest in it.
Issues
-
- Whether Queen Full Power is a sequel, prequel or derivative work of Queen within the meaning of the CPA.
- Whether the word “queen” acquired secondary meaning in film titles, so as to support a passing off action.
- Whether a “spiritual sequel”, the common lead actress and director, and media reports can establish misrepresentation.
- Whether Phantom Studios satisfied the classical trinity test for passing off, irreparable injury and balance of convenience for a temporary injunction.
Phantom Studios’ Arguments
-
- No copyright subsists in a film title, but the Supreme Court in Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta ((2016) 2 SCC 521) preserved passing off for titles, and Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory (2007 SCC OnLine Del 314) supplies the secondary meaning and confusion tests.
- Relying on Vishesh Films (P) Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 6117), Phantom Studios argued that a recognised title functions like a trade mark, and that Queen is synonymous with its makers after a 1,100-screen release and a National Award.
- The same lead actress, the same director, a common word in the title and a shared theme of a woman discovering her power show a “spiritual sequel”, as with Cocktail and Cocktail 2 or Taare Zameen Par and Sitare Zameen Par.
- Public statements by the actress and director, and media reports calling the film “Queen 2”, prove public perception of a sequel, and the CPA bars derivative works without joint consent.
Jiostar, Trigger Happy and Digital 18’s Arguments
-
- The suit is essentially a contract action, passing off was not independently pleaded, and the injunction sought against use of “any other title” shows the claim targets content, not the title.
- Queen Full Power is a Mumbai-based kidnapping thriller with a Marathi cast and no romance or travel, so it uses no creative element of the 2014 film, and themes and ideas cannot be monopolised.
- “Queen” is a common word that Phantom Studios does not claim exclusively, and many films and series already carry it in their titles.
Court’s Analysis
Synopsis comparison defeats the derivative work claim
The court noted that the Queen Full Power passing off claim began as speculation drawn from interviews, and that the producers had shared the film’s synopsis with Phantom Studios’ counsel while withholding it from the public. The court observed that the producers were not even obliged to disclose it, and that keeping it off affidavit protected the film’s story. The court found that Queen follows a young Punjabi woman on a solo honeymoon in Paris and Amsterdam, whereas Queen Full Power follows a married Marathi woman in a kidnapping thriller set in Mumbai. The court held that no similarity in story, plot, theme or characters exists, and that a derivative work must recast or adapt elements of an existing film.
A common word cannot be owned without displacing its meaning
The court reasoned that film titles can function as marks, and that a title such as Dhurandhar or Sholay could confuse viewers even without story overlap. The court observed, however, that secondary meaning requires the word to lose its primary meaning and point only to the claimant, and that Phantom Studios itself disclaimed any monopoly in “queen”. The court found that streaming platforms list many titles containing the word, and that no sequel followed Queen in twelve years. It further noted that Phantom Studios never objected to Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi or Thalaivii, both starring the same actress.
The court distinguished Vishesh Films because the claimant there held registered trade marks and an existing franchise. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Pernod Ricard ruling, the court held that turnover and duration of use alone cannot establish secondary meaning for a laudatory or descriptive word. Film title passing off therefore demands evidence that audiences associate the word with one source.
Actor, director and media reports do not create goodwill
The court opined that the spiritual sequel plea was not pleaded and rested on the pleaded derivative work theory, though it considered the plea anyway. The court stated that goodwill earned by an actress or director travels with that person, not with the producer, and that Phantom Studios disclaimed any monopoly over their engagement or the theme. The court held that a claimant cannot assemble disclaimed elements into a claim of proprietorship. It found that statements made in 2024 and 2025 carried little weight once the actual film turned out to be different.
Trinity test, injury and balance of convenience
The court held that Phantom Studios failed the first limb of the passing off trinity, actionable goodwill, so the inquiry ended there. The court further reasoned that no misrepresentation or injury existed, since Phantom Studios remains free to make its own sequel or spiritual sequel, and damages remain available if the film proves otherwise. The court found the balance of convenience favoured the producers because principal photography was complete.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Bombay High Court held that:
-
- Phantom Studios failed to make out a prima facie case that Queen Full Power is a sequel, prequel, spin-off, reboot or derivative work of Queen.
- The word “queen” has not acquired secondary meaning in relation to films, and no actionable goodwill exists in the title.
- The spiritual sequel plea, the common actress and director, and media statements do not establish misrepresentation or likelihood of confusion.
- The claim of breach of the CPA fails because the film is not a derivative work.
- Irreparable injury is absent because damages are claimed, and the balance of convenience favours the producers.
- The Interim Application is dismissed, the observations are prima facie and will not affect the trial, and costs follow the suit.
Case Citation: Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Interim Application No. 5177 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 97 of 2026, Bombay High Court, decided on 14 October 2026. Available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/128434445/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels
