Phantom Studios Seeks to Block Queen Full Power Over Sequel and Film Title Claims; Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Injunction, Finding No Passing Off
Queen Full Power Shares Actress, Director and Part of Title with Queen; Bombay High Court Rejects Phantom Studios Injunction, Finding No Deception or Contractual Breach
Facts
Phantom Studios India Private Limited claims a 50% interest in the intellectual-property and derivative rights in the 2014 Hindi film Queen, pursuant to a 9 August 2012 co-production agreement and a later novation. The other 50% rights now vest in Digital 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. and Trigger Happy Entertainment are producing a proposed film titled Queen Full Power, again starring Kangana Ranaut and directed by Vikas Bahl. Phantom alleged that the new film was an unauthorised sequel or “spiritual sequel” exploiting Queen’s goodwill, themes and title, and sought interim restraints on its development, promotion and release. Its commercial suit advanced passing-off and contractual-breach claims, not a standalone copyright-infringement claim.
Issues
Whether Queen Full Power was prima facie a sequel, prequel or derivative work of Queen; whether use of the word “Queen”, together with the same actress and director, amounted to passing off; whether Jiostar could be treated as bound by the co-production agreement despite not being its signatory; and whether a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience justified temporary injunctive relief.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Phantom submitted that Queen had achieved cult status and that its title had acquired a secondary meaning identifying the original film. The repeat pairing of Ranaut and Bahl, alleged similarities in women’s empowerment and self-discovery, interviews referring to a sequel, and media or social-media discussions allegedly created public confusion. It argued that its joint ownership of derivative rights barred unilateral exploitation without consent. Phantom further contended that Jiostar’s corporate links and participation in administering the agreement made it a “veritable party” bound by the contractual obligations.
Respondent’s Arguments
The defendants maintained that Queen Full Power was an original, independent thriller with a different story, characters and setting. They denied any proprietary monopoly over the ordinary word “queen”, a broad theme, or the professional services of an actress and director. They contested proof of secondary meaning, misrepresentation and actual confusion, describing third-party posts as speculative. Digital 18, the other rights-holder under the agreement, denied involvement in producing the new film; Jiostar and Trigger Happy denied contractual liability. The defendants also disputed any irreparable loss to Phantom.
Analysis of the Law
The Court applied the three elements of passing off: actionable goodwill in an identifying mark, misrepresentation or deceptive similarity, and resulting damage. A film title may potentially receive passing-off protection if distinctive secondary meaning and likely confusion are proved, but commercial success alone does not confer exclusivity in a common word. Copyright does not protect abstract ideas or themes, and repeating an actor or director does not itself create proprietary rights. A temporary injunction additionally requires a prima facie case, irreparable injury and a favourable balance of convenience. The contractual claim depended principally on the proposed film actually being a derivative work.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta, (2016) 2 SCC 521, concerning copyright in titles and possible passing-off protection; R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118, distinguishing ideas or themes from their protected expression; and decisions including Kanungo Media v. RGV Film Factory and People Interactive v. Vivek Pahwa on secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion. Phantom also invoked Cox and Kings v. SAP India, (2024) 4 SCC 1, on non-signatories. The Court found it unnecessary at the interim stage to decide whether Jiostar was a party to the contract, leaving that question for trial.
Court’s Reasoning
After comparing the available synopses, the Court found the new film materially different from Queen and not prima facie a sequel or derivative work. The common word in the titles and the recurrence of Ranaut and Bahl did not prove deceptive association; an abstract empowerment theme was not exclusive property. Phantom had not established the heightened secondary meaning required for the common word “queen”, while unauthenticated media and social posts were insufficient to prove confusion. Even assuming Jiostar could be bound by the agreement, no contractual breach arose on the material then available because no derivative work was shown. Phantom’s pleaded damages claim offered a potential remedy, while an injunction would seriously prejudice the defendants after principal photography had been completed.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed Interim Application No. 5177 of 2026, refusing to restrain the making or exploitation of Queen Full Power. It held that Phantom had failed to establish a prima facie passing-off or contractual-breach case, irreparable injury or a favourable balance of convenience. The observations were expressly confined to the interim stage and do not determine the pending commercial suit; costs of the application are to be costs in the suit.
Case: Phantom Studios India Private Limited v. Jiostar India Private Limited & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5177 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 97 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 14 October 2026
Result: Interim application dismissed; temporary injunction refused; findings prima facie; commercial suit pending.
