A film’s title often serves as the audience’s first point of connection with the story. It carries
emotional appeal and recognition in the market. In the entertainment industry, where identity
and perception play a crucial role, titles are chosen with deliberate care. They function as
unique identifiers of a film and can significantly influence its commercial success. Beyond
box office value, film titles today are also used for merchandise, brand collaborations, and
spin-offs, making them valuable commercial assets. Because of this expanding economic
potential, protecting film titles becomes essential. The recently released musical-romantic
film, directed by Mohit Suri, starring Ahaan Panday and Aneet Padda, which had received
overwhelming and widespread popularity, has now entered the trademark domain. As per the
online records of the Indian Trade Marks Registry database, Yash Raj Films Private Limited
has filed trademark applications for the protection of the said film title as trademark under
classes 09, 16, 35 and 41.
Copyright Registrability of Film Titles
Copyright law protects original literary, musical, artistic and cinematographic works under
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The question of whether film titles qualify as “literary
works” has been examined by Indian courts. In Krishika Lulla & Ors v. Shyam Vithalrao
Devkatta & Anr, involving the title Desi Boys, the Supreme Court held that a mere title lacks
sufficient originality and substance to constitute a literary work. The Court observed that a
title is incomplete by itself and simply refers to the work that follows.
Similarly, in Gen X Entertainment v. Purple Haze Motion Pictures, concerning the title
Emotional Atyachaar, the Delhi High Court reiterated that copyright protection does not
extend to titles alone. Copying a title without copying the plot, script, characters or
expression does not constitute copyright infringement. Thus, copyright law provides no
independent protection to film titles.
The Role of Film Industry Associations
Producers, production houses and writers also follow the process of registering their titles
with associations such as the Indian Motion Pictures Association and the Indian Film and
Television Producers Council (IFTPC). Such registrations help in establishing priority. In
addition, once a title is registered with such associations by one entity, registration for the
same name is not granted to another entity by the association. Standard practice in the
industry is to register titles with societies or associations such as the Indian Motion Pictures
Producers Association (IMPPA), the Film and Television Producers’ Guild of India, and the
Western India Film Producers’ Association (WIFPA). They ensure that no two producers can
claim ownership of the same title. However, title registration with these associations does not
provide any legal protection or exclusivity. Although it may offer some level of industry
recognition, it does not guarantee that the title will hold up in legal disputes. That being said,
in legal proceedings, courts may refer to these registrations as evidence to establish the first
adopter or user of a title, should a dispute arise.
Trademark Protection for Film Titles (Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999)
Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a film title can be registered as a trademark, usually under
Class 41, which covers entertainment services. Production houses frequently file under Class
41 for film titles and also under Class 9 since films may be distributed or viewed through
devices that record, transmit, or reproduce sound or images. Further protection is taken in
additional classes depending on the intended commercial use of the title. For instance,
clothing merchandise would require filing under Class 25, while stationery bearing the title
would fall under Class 16, and so on.
- Series Titles vs. Single Film Titles:
Film titles fall into two categories: (a) titles of a series, and (b) titles of a single film. Titles of
film series are generally easier to register because the audience naturally associates
subsequent films with earlier ones, giving the title an inherent distinctiveness. For example,
with Dhoom, Dhoom 2, and Dhoom 3, the public immediately recognizes the source of the
films, making trademark registration straightforward. In contrast, a single film title does not
automatically possess distinctiveness and must satisfy an additional requirement before
registration is granted. - Requirement of Secondary Meaning for Single Titles:
To be registered, the title of a single film must acquire a secondary meaning ; meaning that
the public associates the title with a particular production house or source. Even pre-release
publicity can help a title develop recognition sufficient for protection under the proviso to
Section 9(1), which allows registration of marks that have acquired a distinct character
through use.
When determining whether a title has acquired secondary meaning, courts generally consider:
● the length and continuity of the title’s use;
● the extent of advertising and promotional expenditure;
● ticket sales or audience reach, indicating how widely the work was viewed; and
● the proximity of market channels and audience overlap between the plaintiff and
defendant.
These factors help establish whether a single film title has become distinctive enough to be
protected as a trademark.
Case laws
In Harry Potter v. Hari Puttar, the Delhi High Court asked whether a literate or semi-literate
viewer could distinguish between that title and Harry Potter, and found that even if there were
phonetic or visual similarities, the real test is whether the target audience can tell them apart.
In that case, Warner Bros. sought an interim injunction to stop the release of the Punjabi film
Hari Puttar, claiming it infringed their “HARRY POTTER” mark. The Court also noted with
concern Warner Bros.’ delay of three months in filing the action.
In Sholay Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Sanghavi, the Delhi High Court held that
“Sholay” and character names like “Gabbar Singh” had acquired well-known status due to
their long-standing cultural association with the 1975 film. The producers sued when the
defendants used SHOLAY in a domain name, on magazines and merchandise, and even
recreated scenes. Although the defendants argued that film titles are not protected and that
“Sholay” is a dictionary word, the Court rejected this, stating that some film titles gain
distinctiveness and source association through continuous public recognition. The Court
restrained the defendants from any further use and awarded ₹25 lakhs in damages,
reaffirming that iconic film titles can receive strong trademark protection once they acquire
secondary meaning and goodwill.
In Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory, the Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of
lack of distinctiveness. The plaintiff claimed rights over the title “Nishabd”, but since their
film had not been commercially released, the title had no public recognition or secondary
meaning. The Court held that mere registration of a title is not enough for trademark
protection; it must be known to the audience and associated with a particular producer or
source. As “Nishabd” had not been used or gained visibility, it failed to qualify for trademark
protection.
In the case of Bikramjeet Singh V. Anil Kapoor, a prominent actor-producer, had registered
the film title “Shortkut” with Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association (IMPPA) for his
project starring Akshaye Khanna, Arshad Warsi and Amrita Rao. However, producer
Bikramjeet Singh lodged a complaint with IMPPA, asserting that he had already registered
the same title Shortkut with IMPPA well before Kapoor’s registration. Faced with this
objection, Kapoor ultimately changed the title of his film to “Shortkut-The Con Is On”. This
shed light on the industry practice where producers register titles with associations such as
IMPPA to secure priority over names. Although such registration does not by itself grant
statutory trademark rights, it often influences title disputes. In the Shortkut case, the earlier
registration by Singh compelled Kapoor to modify his title, showing how association
registrations can impact business decisions even if not legally binding in court.
Conclusion
Today, trademark protection for film titles is essential because movies no longer end at the
box office. A successful title becomes a brand that can extend into sequels, OTT releases,
music albums, gaming adaptations, themed events, and merchandise. Streaming platforms
have widened audiences, making title recognition a valuable commercial asset. Without
trademark ownership, producers risk losing control over licensing and merchandising
revenue, and may face dilution or unauthorized exploitation of the title by third parties.
Authored by: Ms. Shama Bhat
Ms. Shama Bhat, is a 5th year BA LL.B. student at PES University, Bangalore. She has a strong academic and research interest in Intellectual property law and labour law. She enjoys examining how these areas intersect with culture, markets, media, and everyday realities. Her work often explores new or emerging legal questions through a practical and socially-rooted lens.
Leave a Reply