Summary
In the case of Everest Entertainment LLP vs. Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar, the Bombay High Court held that there was no copyright in the film title Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy, and that no prima facie infringement in the script or promotional material was present. The Court refused to grant ad-interim relief, stating that the claimed similarities did not amount to substantial copying under copyright law.
Copyright Infringement Claims
Everest Entertainment LLP, the plaintiff, claimed exclusive copyright in its film titled Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy. It stated that the rights were acquired through assignment agreements executed with the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ new film Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale infringed the copyright in its script and promotional material, and further claimed that the defendants were passing off their film as a sequel to the plaintiff’s work by using a deceptively similar title and presentation.
Questions Before the Court
– Whether the defendants’ use of the title Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the film Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy.
– Whether the defendants’ script and promotional material constituted substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s original work.
– Whether the similarities between the films justified an ad-interim injunction?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff:
• Claimed exclusive copyright over the film, script, and promotional materials under an assignment agreement.
• Alleged that the defendants copied the storyline, characters, dialogues, scenes, and even the font of the film’s title.
• Asserted that the defendants’ film gave an impression of being a sequel, thereby misleading the public and infringing on the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Defendants:
• Denied any similarity in the plot, characters, or artistic content.
• Argued that the plaintiff had no copyright in the title, especially as it contained the historical name “Shivaji Raje Bhosale.”
• Submitted that their work was independently created and original, and any resemblance was incidental.
• Raised delay as a ground to deny equitable relief.
Court’s Analysis
On Copyright in the Film Title:
The court stated that under well established principles, copyright does not subsist in a title. A title alone, being a short phrase or expression, is not a ‘literary work’ under the Copyright Act. The court accepted the defendants’ argument that names such as “Shivaji Raje Bhosale” are historical and cannot be owned by any individual.
On Copyright in Script and Promotional Material:
According to the court, while scripts and promotional content may qualify as copyrightable works, infringement requires substantial copying. The court observed that although the plaintiff had submitted a chart of alleged similarities, those were not sufficient to establish substantial reproduction. It held that the plaintiff’s claims, based on narrative similarities and characterisation, did not show a prima facie case of copying.
On Claim of Passing Off:
The court noted that passing off requires proof of misrepresentation and likelihood of confusion. The court found that the defendants’ film was not being marketed as a sequel or connected to the plaintiff’s work. It said the plaintiff had failed to establish deception or confusion among the public.
On Delay and Equitable Relief:
The court held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendants’ film since April 2025, yet waited until October 2025 to approach the court. It ruled that such delay disentitled the plaintiff to equitable interim relief.
Findings
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s application for ad-interim injunction. It held that:
- No copyright subsists in the title Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy.
- The similarities in the script and promotional material did not amount to copyright infringement.
- The delay in approaching the court was fatal to the claim for equitable relief.
Case Citation
Everest Entertainment LLP vs. Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar, 2025:BHC-OS:19882, decided on 24 October 2025.
Case Link link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/54316060/ (Visited on 8 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
