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\u2019 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\u2019s work by using a deceptively similar title and presentation.<\/p>\n
– Whether the defendants\u2019 use of the title Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale infringed the plaintiff\u2019s copyright in the film Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy.
\n– Whether the defendants\u2019 script and promotional material constituted substantial reproduction of the plaintiff\u2019s original work.
\n– Whether the similarities between the films justified an ad-interim injunction?<\/p>\n
\u2022 Claimed exclusive copyright over the film, script, and promotional materials under an assignment agreement.
\n\u2022 Alleged that the defendants copied the storyline, characters, dialogues, scenes, and even the font of the film\u2019s title.
\n\u2022 Asserted that the defendants’ film gave an impression of being a sequel, thereby misleading the public and infringing on the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Denied any similarity in the plot, characters, or artistic content.
\n\u2022 Argued that the plaintiff had no copyright in the title, especially as it contained the historical name \u201cShivaji Raje Bhosale.\u201d
\n\u2022 Submitted that their work was independently created and original, and any resemblance was incidental.
\n\u2022 Raised delay as a ground to deny equitable relief.<\/p>\n
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 \u2018literary work\u2019 under the Copyright Act. The court accepted the defendants\u2019 argument that names such as \u201cShivaji Raje Bhosale\u201d are historical and cannot be owned by any individual.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s claims, based on narrative similarities and characterisation, did not show a prima facie case of copying.<\/p>\n
The court noted that passing off requires proof of misrepresentation and likelihood of confusion. The court found that the defendants\u2019 film was not being marketed as a sequel or connected to the plaintiff\u2019s work. It said the plaintiff had failed to establish deception or confusion among the public.<\/p>\n
The court held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendants\u2019 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.<\/p>\n
The Court rejected the plaintiff\u2019s application for ad-interim injunction. It held that:<\/p>\n
Everest Entertainment LLP vs. Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar, 2025:BHC-OS:19882, decided on 24 October 2025.<\/p>\n