Bombay High Court Refuses To Restrain Kangana Ranaut's 'Queen Full Power' Over Copyright Dispute
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to restrain the making and release of Queen Full Power, a film starring Kangana Ranaut and directed by Vikas Bahl, in a suit filed by Phantom Studios India Pvt. Ltd., which claims 50% ownership of the intellectual property rights in the 2014 film Queen.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Phantom had failed to establish a prima facie case of passing off or breach of contract. The Court also found that Phantom had not demonstrated that the word “queen” had acquired secondary meaning in relation to films.
Phantom sued Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. and Trigger Happy Entertainment, the co-producers of Queen Full Power, alleging that the proposed film was a sequel, derivative work or “spiritual sequel” of Queen that sought to exploit the original film's goodwil
It sought to stop the film in any form, and its use of the story, characters and other elements of 'Queen', under the title 'Queen Full Power', 'Queen Forever' or 'Queen 2'.
Phantom's case rested on two claims: passing off based on the title of 'Queen', and breach of the 2012 Co-Production Agreement.
Under that agreement, as novated in 2022, Phantom and Digital 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. jointly and equally own all rights in the film, including derivative rights, so no derivative work can be made without the other's consent.
Phantom initially believed Jiostar was the successor to the original co-producer, Viacom 18, and sued on that footing. After the defendants' replies showed that Viacom 18's film business and its rights in 'Queen' now sit with Digital 18, Phantom impleaded Digital 18 and recast Jiostar as a “veritable party” to the agreement.
Phantom also claims Rs. 253.55 crore in damages.
Senior Advocate Darius Khambata argued for Phantom that 'Queen' is a cult classic whose title has acquired secondary meaning, relying on the Delhi High Court's rulings in Kanungo Media, Sholay Media and Vishesh Films. On the contract claim, he relied on Cox and Kings to argue that Jiostar and Digital 18 form one economic unit and that Jiostar had performed the agreement's functions.
Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, for Jiostar, said the suit was at heart a contract claim and that even the passing off plea was anchored to the allegation of a derivative work. He called 'Queen Full Power' a kidnapping thriller set in Mumbai with no connection to the original, and said 'queen' is a common, laudatory word.
Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, for Trigger Happy, added that Phantom disclaims any monopoly in the word, the theme or the actor-director pairing, and so cannot build goodwill out of them. Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, for Digital 18, said it has no role in the new film and no connection with Jiostar.
The Court first rejected the objection that passing off was not independently pleaded. It found that the plaint, though thin on the point, pleads secondary meaning in the title, and that the defendants had themselves answered that case.
On the derivative work claim, Jiostar had shown a synopsis of 'Queen Full Power' to the Court and to Phantom's counsel, though not on affidavit. Phantom called it unreliable.
The Court disagreed. The producers “were not even obliged to place before the Court the synopsis of the film,” it said, as Phantom had nothing concrete beyond media speculation. Comparing the two, it found a young Punjabi woman's solo honeymoon in Europe on one side and a married Marathi woman dealing with a kidnapping on the other.
There was “no material on record to draw a prima facie conclusion that the proposed film borrows the essential elements or structural fabric of the film Queen.”
On secondary meaning, the Court held that box office success is not enough. “There is conceptual difference between a successful film at the box office and the film needs to be a cult classic, the one which has developed loyal and passionate fan base over the time and has left a legacy,” it said.
It also held that the “sales figures” factor in Kanungo Media can no longer be treated as valid after the judgment of Apex Court in Pernod Ricard. For a common, generic and laudatory word like 'queen', the threshold is extremely high, and the word “still signifies its ordinary and primary meaning, which is not displaced even by some degree on account of the alleged success of Plaintiff's film Queen.”
The Court noted that many films and OTT titles use the word, and that Phantom never objected to Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi or Thalaivii. “If Plaintiff's contention is accepted, no one would ever be able to make a film using the word 'queen' in its title,” it observed.
The Court distinguished Vishesh Films on three grounds: Phantom holds no registered mark in 'Queen', there is no franchise built around the title, and the parties never negotiated a sequel. It also noted that Sholay illustrates how a title can displace a word's meaning, and that 'queen' is nowhere near that position.
On the “spiritual sequel” plea, which the Court noted was not pleaded in the plaint, it held that “sharing of substantial elements between the two films is an essential ingredient.” Such sequels usually involve an express representation to the public, a title signalling the link and some callback, such as a repeated song.
None was present, and the producers had “never told the world that they have made a sequel of the film Queen.”
The Court further held that Phantom “cannot claim any proprietorship or monopoly in the alleged theme of discovery of power and confidence by a woman.” It added that “even combination of the three viz. title, theme and lead actor would not create any monopoly in favour of the Plaintiff once it is established that there is absolutely no connect in the story of the two films.” Ranaut's recognition, it said, is “her personal success and recognition, which cannot be sought to be monopolized by the Plaintiff.”
On the contract claim, the Court left open whether Jiostar is a veritable party to the agreement, to be decided at trial. Even assuming it is, the claim fails because the film is not a derivative work.
It also held that Phantom, which can still make its own sequel, would suffer no irreparable injury given its damages claim, and that the balance of convenience favoured the producers because principal photography is complete.
The Court dismissed the interim application, clarified that its observations are prima facie and will not affect the trial.
For Phantom Studios: Senior Advocates Darius J. Khambata and Sharan Jagtiani with Advocates Naira Jejeebhoy, Rohan Dakshini, Samridhi Lodha, Nishtha Gupta, Shweta Jaydev, Nishi Doshi and Jai Sanyal i/b Rashmikant & Partners
For Jiostar: Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam with Advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Anand Mohan, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Aman Saraf, Vivek Dwivedi, Fatima Ali, Unnati Gambani and Sakshi Dube i/b Anand Naik & Co.
For Trigger Happy Entertainment: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat with Advocates Varun Dhond, Vikramaditya Chavan, Udita Kanwar Chavan and Suryadeep Nanda i/b Willow Legal
For Digital 18 Media: Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf with Advocates Saloni Shah, Shivani Khanwilkar and Dhun Vinod Santosh i/b Khanwilkar & Shah Associates