What filmmakers need to know

Film production and distribution house Eros International Media has filed a suit in the Bombay High Court against filmmaker Aanand L Rai and his production house Colour Yellow Media Entertainment LLP. It accused them of trademark infringement and copyright infringement over Rai’s recent film Tere Ishk Mein. Eros says the film has been projected as a spiritual sequel to its 2013 film Raanjhana, also directed by Rai.

In 2024, the Delhi High Court restrained film production company T-Series from using titles Tu Hi Aashiqui, Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai and Aashiqui for an upcoming film. It ruled in favour of Vishesh Films, a film company owned by Mukesh Bhatt that started the Aashiqui franchise. T-Series had backed a romantic drama that was to be released as a spiritual sequel to the Aashiqui franchise.

Experts said spiritual sequels in Bollywood are less about creative continuity and more about intellectual property risk. Titles, trademarks, character rights and even the goodwill attached to a film are legally protectable assets. When a new project markets itself as a sequel or spiritual successor without securing those rights, it risks infringing on registered marks, diluting brand equity and misleading audiences.

Over the past few years, Bollywood has produced spiritual sequels such as Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2 and 3, Metro..In Dino, Dhadak 2, Son of Sardaar 2, and films in the Housefull franchise. However, many of them were backed by the original producers.

Infringement risks

“Films positioned as spiritual sequels without the involvement of the original producer face heightened legal exposure under Indian intellectual property law,” said Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris. “The most immediate risk is trademark infringement, particularly where the earlier film’s title or franchise is registered and enjoys strong public association, as seen in the Aashiqui litigation.”

Even where titles differ, the producer of the original film can claim the new film is trying to pass off as a spiritual sequel and benefit from its popularity if marketing, promotions or narrative positioning create an impression of continuity or endorsement, Razvi added.

Copyright issues typically surface not around themes or genres, which are not protected, but where there is alleged replication of distinctive characters, narrative arcs or musical elements, Razvi explained. Claims such as those raised in relation to Tere Ishk Mein highlight how courts may examine whether similarities go beyond inspiration into substantial reproduction. These disputes often result in cease-and-desist notices, injunction applications and large damages claims, disrupting release schedules and marketing.

Film producer, trade and exhibition expert Girish Johar pointed out that the term ‘spiritual sequel’ was coined in the first place to avoid such copyright disputes. Agreements and contracts between co-producers and all parties involved are crucial in this case, he said.

The biggest risk is that a spiritual sequel has no recognized meaning in copyright or trademark law, according to Ankit Sahni, a partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates. It is a marketing construct, not a legal one.

Once a film positions itself as emotionally, narratively or brand-wise connected to a prior successful film, it potentially triggers issues such as trademark infringement, copyright infringement and unfair competition exposure if the underlying rights are not owned or licensed.

Commercial value

“Studios increasingly treat successful films as exploitable IP assets, not just standalone creative works. That means goodwill, title recognition, character recall and brand association carry measurable commercial value. If a third party attempts to monetize that value without authorization, the original rightsholder is likely to intervene,” Sahni added.

Courts will typically examine whether the branding, promotional language, character arcs, visual cues or story scaffolding create a likelihood of consumer confusion or misrepresentation with respect to origin or association.

While the terminology may have evolved more recently with a lot more filmmakers attempting spiritual sequels in an uncertain box office environment, there have been examples of studios stopping unauthorized remakes in Bollywood. Ameet Datta, founder of ADP Law Offices, pointed out that in 2007, Ram Gopal Varma tried a remake of the 1975 blockbuster Sholay initially called Ram Gopal Varma Ke Sholay, which was re-titled Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag after litigation was filed with other changes made to the film.

“Studios are very quick to stop unauthorized remakes or copyrighted elements being used in sequences,” Datta added.

Law firms advising studios can play a proactive role well before the production or promotion of such films begins. A key step is conducting pre-production IP audits, reviewing scripts, character development, music briefs and marketing decks to identify overlaps with existing films or franchises.

Preventive legal structuring

Counsel often advise against using the spiritual sequel terminology altogether. Aishwarya Kaushiq, a partner in the disputes team of BTG Advaya, said before greenlighting such a project, legal advisors typically identify who owns the trademark, copyright and goodwill of the original film.

If the proposed title, theme or promotion creates any implied association with an existing feature film, the filmmakers either obtain such rights from the rightsholders of the original film or ensure the new film is marketed as identifiably distinct.

According to Ajay Khatlawala, senior partner at Little & Co, law firms now conduct enhanced title and brand clearance beyond basic trademark searches. Disclaimers are used cautiously, recognizing they do not cure infringement by themselves. In higher-risk cases, negotiated consent or licences are explored at an early stage. Preventive legal structuring has become a standard part of film development.

“For studios, the imperative is clear: register titles early, enforce them consistently and draft contracts that explicitly define sequel and spin‑off rights,” said Sudeep Chatterjee, senior partner at Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP. “For filmmakers, the safest path is to avoid suggestive marketing unless the IP chain of title is watertight. In today’s environment, the language of promotion can be as consequential as the script itself because IP law treats goodwill as property and property cannot be borrowed without consent.”