Bombay High Court Refuses to Restrain Release of “QUEEN FULL POWER”

INTRODUCTION

In a judgement passed on October 14, 2026, in the case of Phantom Studios India Private Limited v. Jiostar India Private Limited & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the “Case”), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay presided over by Justice Sandeep V. Marne (“Bombay High Court”) dismissed the interim injunction application for restraining the release or exploitation of the film titled ‘Queen Full Power’ (“Proposed Film”), being produced by Jiostar India Private Limited (“Jiostar”) and Trigger Happy Entertainment Limited (“Trigger Happy”). The injunction was sought by Phantom Studios India Private Limited (“Plaintiff”), co-owner of the equal rights in the 2014 film titled ‘Queen’ (“Original Film”), on the grounds of passing off and breach of the Co-Production Agreement dated August 9, 2012 (“CPA”) executed between Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (now known as PhantomFilms) and Viacom 18 (“Viacom”), which was later novated in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Bombay High Court found no prima facie case and set out a detailed analysis of what is, and is not, a derivative work, sequel or ‘spiritual sequel’ along with the threshold for protecting a film title built on common words.

BACKGROUND

In 2025, interview and media reports suggested that the Director and the lead actress of the Original Film, Mr. Vikas Bahl and Ms. Kangana Ranaut, respectively, were working on a sequel tentatively titled ‘Queen 2’. The Plaintiff alleged that the Proposed Film was a sequel or “spiritual sequel” to the Original Film and its title, theme and association with the same creative team sought to capitalise on the goodwill associated with the Original Film. Jiostar, however, maintained that the Proposed Film was an independent and original work. The Plaintiff accordingly instituted proceedings against Jiostar and Trigger Happy.

Under the CPA, the parties were entitled to joint and equal ownership of all “Derivative Rights” arising from a “Derivative Work” in the Original Film, meaning any work based upon the film or its characters, story or other elements, including sequels, prequels and remakes. Viacom’s rights under the CPA subsequently vested in Digital 18 Media Private Limited (“Digital 18”), which the Plaintiff impleaded as a defendant while describing Jiostar as a “veritable party” to the CPA. Jiostar, Trigger Happy and Digital 18 are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendants”.

The Plaintiff sought to restrain the production, release and exploitation of the Proposed Film, as well as any sequel, prequel, remake or other derivative work based on the Original Film, whether titled ‘Queen Full Power’ or otherwise, alleging passing off and contractual breach of the CPA. In addition, the Plaintiff sought damages of INR 253,55,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Two Hundred Fifty-Three Crore and Fifty-Five Lakh Only).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Bombay High Court decided to examine the Case in the light of the following issues:

A. Derivative Work:

The Bombay High Court examined and found no material similarity in the stories, plots or themes of the Proposed Film and the Original Film. While the Original Film revolved around a young Punjabi woman’s solo honeymoon journey to Europe and her discovery of independence, the Proposed Film centred on a middle-aged Marathi woman dealing with the kidnapping of her husband and son. The Bombay High Court observed that the Proposed Film was not a linear continuation, prequel, spin-off or reboot of the Original Film and cited as follows:

“To constitute a derivative work, the new film must be a new motion picture that reinterprets, transforms, or adapts elements from an existing, pre-released film. The new film must be a new creative work that is recast, transformed, or adapted from the existing movie.”

Finding no material to establish that the Proposed Film borrowed the essential elements or structural fabric of the Original Film, the Bombay High Court concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of the Proposed Film being a derivative work of the Original Film.

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that there is no copyright or monopoly in an idea, theme, plot, or genre — protection extends only to form, manner and expression.

B. Secondary Meaning and Title:

Relying on its judgement in People Interactive v. Vivek Pahwa (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 7351), the Bombay High Court observed that “secondary meaning arises when the primary meaning of a word is displaced and the public associates it exclusively with Plaintiff’s product/service.” The Court held that film box-office success alone is not sufficient to establish secondary meaning, and that the title must be firmly embedded in viewers’ minds so that only the Original Film comes to mind when title/ word is used.

Applying this test, the Bombay High Court held that ‘Queen’ was a “generic/common and laudatory” word with multiple ordinary meanings and widespread use in film and entertainment titles. The Court found no material establishing that “queen” had acquired secondary significance or that it exclusively evoked the Original Film. Accordingly, the Bombay High Court held that the use of the word ‘Queen’ in ‘Queen Full Power’ did not establish passing off and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim based on the title.

C. Spiritual Sequel:

The Bombay High Court opined that a “spiritual sequel” is “a film which is not directly related to a previous film but seems to share a lot of elements with it”. While a spiritual sequel need not involve linear continuity of the story or the same characters, sharing of substantial elements between the two films is an essential ingredient, and mere thematic similarity is not enough. A spiritual sequel essentially involves an element of express representation both by maker of the films as well as through the title and some elements like song etc., to establish a connection with the earlier film and encash upon its goodwill.

It observed that, even if the discovery of power and confidence by a woman were treated as a common factor, there remained a conceptual difference between the films’ themes and no distinctive element of the Original Film repeated in the Proposed Film. Further, no monopoly can be claimed over a theme; making a film based on a woman’s journey of self-discovery does not preclude others from exploring a similar theme. Accordingly, in the absence of an explicit callback or reference to the Original Film, the Bombay High Court rejected the contention that Queen Full Power was a “spiritual sequel” to Queen.

D. Passing Off:

The Bombay High Court held that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the classic trinity of passing off: (a) goodwill, as it failed to establish that the title “Queen” had acquired secondary meaning exclusively associating it with the Original Film, and could not rely on the same actor, director or thematic similarities to establish goodwill. The Plaintiff had expressly disclaimed any monopoly over the word “Queen” itself, yet tried to bundle in non-proprietary elements (lead actor/director combination, thematic similarity, public statements) to manufacture goodwill — which the Court held was impermissible once monopoly in the base word is disavowed; (b) misrepresentation, as the titles and content of the two films did not establish actionable similarity or a likelihood of confusion; and (c) injury, as the Plaintiff neither demonstrated that it had been prevented from making a derivative work nor established any adverse impact on the Original Film’s OTT viewership.

E.“Veritable party” / non-signatory liability issue left open.

The Plaintiff also argued that Jiostar should be bound by the CPA as a “veritable party” due to its conduct and corporate affiliation with Digital 18. However, the Bombay High Court declined to decide this issue, holding it unnecessary since the underlying premise — that the new film is a derivative work/sequel — was not established. This question however still remains open for trial. This is significant for corporate groups structuring productions through affiliates — the non-signatory liability theory under Cox and Kings Ltd. Versus. SAP India Pvt. Ltd & Anr. ((2024) 4 SCC 1) was argued at length but not resolved, so the risk analysis around group-company conduct and contractual privity remains unsettled pending trial.

CONCLUSION

The Bombay High Court’s decision in this Case marks a significant reaffirmation of the boundaries of intellectual property protection in the motion picture industry, striking a careful balance between proprietary rights and creative freedom. By delineating the limits of derivative works, spiritual sequels and title-based passing off, the Bombay High Court underscores that the law protects established rights, not monopolies over common words, themes or ideas.