No Monopoly on History: Bombay HC Rejects Copyright Claim on Shivaji Maharaj's Name, Citing 'Calculated Delay'

In a significant ruling for the entertainment industry, the Bombay High Court has emphatically declared that historical figures like Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj belong to the public consciousness and their names cannot be monopolised through intellectual property claims. Delivering a detailed order, a vacation bench of Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar refused to grant an ad-interim injunction against the release of Mahesh Manjrekar’s Marathi film, Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale , dismantling the plaintiff's case on both copyright infringement and passing off, while sternly rebuking the "calculated" and "inordinate delay" in seeking judicial relief.

The suit was initiated by Everest Entertainment LLP, the producer of the 2009 hit film Mi Shivaji Raje Bhosale Boltoy . They alleged that Manjrekar's new film was a "blatant and slavish copy" and was being deceptively marketed as a sequel, infringing upon their exclusive rights. However, the court systematically rejected each claim, providing a robust analysis of copyright principles and the doctrine of laches, ultimately paving the way for the new film's scheduled release.

The Doctrine of Laches: Delay as a Decisive Factor

A cornerstone of Justice Jamsandekar's decision was the plaintiff's unexplained delay in approaching the court. Everest Entertainment was aware of the new film since April 2025 but filed its suit only on October 10, just weeks before the October 31 release date. The court condemned this "eleventh-hour" application, characterising it as a strategic manoeuvre rather than a genuine plea for urgent relief.

“The litigant who adopts a relaxed approach does not deserve any equity,” the court observed. “Prima facie, I find that the silence on the part of the plaintiff is a calculated move to put the court and the defendants under pressure.”

Citing precedents like Anil Kapoor Films Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Make My Day Entertainment , the court reinforced the judicial principle that last-minute injunctions against film releases are to be discouraged. Such delays not only prejudice the defendants, who had invested significantly (including ₹1.25 crore in promotions alone), but also misuse the court's urgent hearing process. The judgment made it clear that a party seeking equitable relief must act with alacrity; a failure to do so fatally undermines their claim for an injunction, as the balance of convenience heavily shifts in favour of the defendants.

Copyright Claims Dissected and Dismissed

The court meticulously analysed Everest's multifaceted copyright infringement claims, finding each to be prima facie unsustainable.

1. Cinematograph Film: The plaintiff’s primary contention was that the new film was a copy of their 2009 production. The court, however, clarified the high threshold for such a claim under the Copyright Act. Citing Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd. , Justice Jamsandekar noted that infringement of a cinematograph film occurs only when a "facsimile copy" is made.

"The Defendants have produced their own cinematograph film. The making of another film, even if it resembles the earlier film, is not ‘copying’ under Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act," the order stated. The court found Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale to be an "entirely new work" with a distinct theme focusing on farmer suicides, unlike the original film’s plot about a common man’s identity crisis.

2. Script and Literary Work: Despite asserting copyright over the original script, Everest failed to produce it in court. Instead, they presented a chart of alleged similarities, which the court found unconvincing. After reviewing the material, the judge concluded, "I find no substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff's literary work." This highlights a crucial evidentiary requirement for litigants: specific, demonstrable proof of substantial copying of expression, not merely thematic overlap, is necessary.

3. Dialogues and Common Expressions: The claim of copyright over dialogues such as "Yaaj Sathi Kela Hota Attahas" ("This was the reason for the struggle") was firmly rejected. The court held that these were common Marathi phrases embedded in literature, theatre, and daily parlance, and thus not original works attributable to the plaintiff.

"If the Plaintiff's claim is accepted, the Plaintiff shall have exclusive rights to these dialogues for a period of the author's life plus 60 years. Thus, these words and dialogues will have to be practically deleted from Marathi literature for the benefit of the Plaintiff," the court reasoned, dismissing the claim as an untenable attempt to privatise common language.

Passing Off and the Non-Exclusivity of Historical Names

The most resounding legal principle articulated in the judgment concerned the use of historical names. Everest argued that the film's title, Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale , was deceptively similar to their own and was intended to pass off the new film as a sequel, thereby encashing on their established goodwill.

The court unequivocally rejected this premise, stating that names of revered historical figures are part of the public domain and cannot be sequestered for private commercial gain.

“I do not have any hesitation in saying that the Plaintiff cannot claim any goodwill or exclusivity in these names or titles... the name of 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj' in any form cannot be the subject matter of exclusivity,” Justice Jamsandekar declared.

The court further dismantled the passing off claim by noting the absence of the three classical tests: goodwill (in the specific name, which was deemed public property), misrepresentation (no evidence showed the defendants marketed the film as a sequel), and likelihood of damage. The court also expressed confidence in the audience's ability to differentiate between the two films. "The well-informed and tasteful audience of Marathi films, prima facie, is not going to be confused or deceived," it held.

Implications for Entertainment and IP Litigation

This judgment serves as a critical reminder to intellectual property litigants, particularly in the fast-paced entertainment sector.

• Prompt Action is Paramount: The ruling underscores that courts will not entertain delayed applications for injunctions, especially when significant financial investment and public release are at stake. Legal teams must advise clients to act swiftly upon discovering potential infringement.
  
  
• The High Bar for Film Copyright Infringement: The decision reinforces that mere thematic or plot similarities are insufficient to ground a copyright claim. A plaintiff must demonstrate substantial and material copying of the expression of the idea, moving beyond generic scenes or concepts.
  
  
• Public Domain Remains Sacrosanct: The judgment robustly defends the public's right to access and draw upon history and culture. It sends a clear message that attempts to claim proprietary rights over historical names, common phrases, or generic cultural depictions will not find favour with the courts.

While denying ad-interim relief, the court has scheduled the matter for a final hearing, directing the defendants to file their replies. However, the comprehensive and definitive nature of the prima facie findings on delay, copyright, and passing off has set a formidable precedent, clearing the path for Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale and offering valuable guidance for future IP disputes in the Indian film industry.

Case Title: Everest Entertainment LLP v Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar and Ors Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP L. NO. 32984 OF 2025