Indians being fans of cinema, are connected to movies emotionally. The noteworthy storytelling blended with songs and unique dialogues has added the masala of peculiarity to Indian films. Along with characters, dialogues, and songs, movies are invariably identified by their creative titles. Being significant identifiers of cinema, titles have the potential to attract an audience by capturing the gist of the movie into a few creative words. Nostalgia runs through the veins of moviegoers whenever anyone mentions the names of iconic movies such as Sholay, Mera Naam Joker, Karan Arjun, Shola aur Shubnam, etc.

The same title holds utmost importance when it is part of a franchise film or series of films. For example, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the title of a movie based on a superhero character would be associated with a franchise. In Bollywood too, the series such as Dhoom and Krish have the power to attract audiences for another installment. In such scenarios, Intellectual Property Rights hold greater significance. These rights could be relating to registration of trademarks, licensing agreements between persons associated with the film, distribution rights, and ownership rights. This would ensure that the title would not be used by anyone to exploit profit based on goodwill and reputation earned by title.

Recently, the same dispute came into the spotlight in Vishesh Films Private Limited v. Super Cassettes Industries Limited1, where the rights over the movie title ‘Aashiqui’ came under dispute. The ‘Aashiqui’ movie franchise known for its songs and storyline has secured a special spot in the hearts of Indian moviegoers, leading to anticipation of the third installment, which was also announced by its producers. However, the controversy surfaced when Super Cassettes Industries Limited (also known as “T-series”) started production on the tentatively titled movie “Tu Hi Aashiqui”/ “Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai”, without express consent from Vishesh Films Private Limited, which is the registered proprietor of trademarks “Aashiqui” and “Aashiqui Ke Liye” in respect of Classes of 9,16 and 41 under the Trademark Act, 1999.

This case is significant for adjudicating upon the protection given to words when a title is registered as a device mark. Although the term “device mark” is not defined in the Trademark Act, 1999, a reference can be made to the definition put forth by the High Court of Gujarat in Damodarbhai Kumanbhai Kansagara v. World Express Elevator2, which stated that a device mark is a graphic image or design, which may or may not have words. In Damodarbhai (supra), the court while defining the device mark stated that registering a device mark prevents third parties from using a similar logo or design for their products or services, rather than the words incorporated in the logo.
In the present case, Vishesh Films Private Limited registered the words “Aashiqui” and “Aashiqui ke liye” as device marks. While the judgment in the present case has delved into various aspects of Intellectual Property Rights relating to trademarks, two issues stand out:
a. about adjudicating whether the trademark is generic and common to trade.
b. application of the rule of anti-dissection to the present situation where the words registered as device mark would have the effect of protecting the words of the title against infringement.

Firstly, I will delve deeper into the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi court regarding the word “Aashiqui” as a generic word and common to trade. A generic word, as explained by the court, is a common word that does not distinguish the source of goods or services and hence is not eligible for trademark protection. While a mark that is common to trade may be distinctive, it gets diluted when it is used by people on a large scale. The court further explained that titles of the movie are not merely descriptive just because they describe the film’s plot, characters, etc. Movies are more than the sum of their parts, being intricate stories where no single word can be a description of plotline or character. The word “Aashiqui” is not a descriptive term but a distinctive mark that suggests that it is a specific brand of romantic movies, and hence is eligible to be protected under trademark law. Regarding whether the word is common to trade, the burden is on the defendant to show that the distinctiveness has been diluted by substantial use. The court put a special emphasis on the word “substantial use” while discussing elements to prove that the word is common to trade. The court further held that the title “Aashiqui” has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill through its association with the successful Aashiqui franchise.

While explaining the rule of anti-dissection, the court referred to the explanation given in Venus Worldwide Entertainment v. Popular Entertainment Network3, where the court had emphasized that the above-mentioned rule prevents a party from isolating a single element of a composite mark for protection, except where the isolated part is the dominant part of the mark. Relying on the explanation stated in the supra case, the court observed that the device registration for the title “Aashiqui” comprised only the word without any accompanying images, designs, or other elements. This feature of “Aashiqui” as a mark was suggestive of observance that the word stands as a dominant and central part of the device mark. Hence, the title “Aashiqui” even after being registered as a device mark, is not entitled to be used by others.
In conclusion, Vishesh Films Private Limited v. Super Cassettes Industries Limited highlights the critical role that intellectual property rights, particularly trademarks, play in the entertainment industry. It reaffirms that movie titles, especially those that have acquired distinctiveness and goodwill, deserve protection under trademark law. By ruling in favor of Vishesh Films, the court emphasized the significance of safeguarding creative works from exploitation, ensuring that rights over iconic titles like “Aashiqui” remain exclusively with their registered owners, thereby preserving the integrity and value of film franchises.