- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit and Law Firm industries
Introduction
The commercial exploitation of fictional characters is hardly new. Recognisable characters from film and television sell everything from toys and apparel to cars and financial services. But when does borrowing a character for an advertisement cross the line from creative reference into infringement?
A recent dispute involving Mickey Mouse illustrates the difficulty particularly well. On January 1, 2024, Disney’s 1928 animated short Steamboat Willie - the first public appearance of Mickey and Minnie Mouse - entered the public domain in the United States upon expiry of its copyright term. The copyright question was therefore relatively simple. The trademark question was not.
In September 2025, a US law firm produced a black-and-white television commercial in the style of Steamboat Willie – the advertisement depicted Mickey's steamboat colliding with Minnie's car, after which Minnie calls the firm for legal help. The advertisement expressly stated that it had not been approved, authorised or endorsed by Disney. Yet Disney continues to hold extensive trademark rights associated with Mickey Mouse. After Disney declined to assure the firm that it would not object to the advertisement – against the backdrop of Disney having just sued jewellery seller Satéur over its “Mickey 1928 Collection” – the firm went to federal court seeking a declaration that its commercial did not infringe Disney’s trademark and related rights. The action was voluntarily withdrawn without a ruling. Intriguingly, the commercial was later aired anyway.
The episode is a useful reminder that a character can sit at the crossroads of several distinct bodies of law at once. Expiry of copyright may free the underlying work for public use, but it does not necessarily extinguish other rights associated with a famous character, including trademark rights concerned with source, sponsorship or affiliation. Disney’s Satéur action itself illustrates the distinction: although the 1928 incarnation of Mickey was in the public domain, Disney challenged the use of Mickey imagery, the MICKEY name and associated devices on jewellery and packaging as trademark infringement and false designation of origin.
Nor is the problem confined to Mickey Mouse. Disney has pursued unauthorised commercial uses of other characters, including Winnie the Pooh and Robin Hood. And decades earlier, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., a US court restrained a Honda commercial featuring a tuxedoed hero, a femme fatale and a helicopter chase evocative of the James Bond films, rejecting Honda’s parody defence.
This piece takes up one strand of that larger picture: what does Indian copyright law say about the use of film characters in advertising? Trademark and passing-off exposure for character use - the Satéur side of the ledger - raises its own distinct questions under Indian law and is better addressed separately; what follows is confined to the copyright and performer's rights framework under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Indian Legal Framework: Does copyright subsist in film characters? Who owns this copyright?
Under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act), the author of a cinematographic film is the producer of the film. The producer enjoys copyright over the script as a literary work, which gives him or her the right to reproduce the script, issue copies of it, communicate it to the public and make a cinematograph film or any other adaptation of it. He or she also enjoys protection over all characters included in the said script. It is this reproduction and adaptation right that an advertiser can knowingly or unknowingly infringe whenever it recreates and uses a film's characters, scenes, or dialogue without consent.
Importantly, even where copyright vests in the producer, the performer who portrays a character on screen enjoys independent and concurrent rights under Section 38A of the Copyright Act, 1957, which protect their right to reproduce their performance and communicate it to the public.
Thus, copyright in this context, is not a single right but a bundle of exclusive rights set out in Section 14 of the Act. Significantly, copyright protection over characters come with unique nuances. For instance, courts have developed tests to determine when a character crosses the threshold from an unprotectable "idea" to a protectable "expression." In Nichols v Universal Pictures, the court stated that "the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for making them too indistinct."1
When an advertiser uses a film character — whether through lookalikes, animated depictions, or direct references — without obtaining a licence from the copyright owner, it amounts to an unauthorised reproduction or adaptation of the copyrightable elements of that character. Characters which pass the delineation test developed in the Nichols case mentioned above, tend to develop a separate identity from the film that they are a part of and hence enjoy stronger protection. But many a time, that comes with a heightened risk of infringing use – thus, producers must always remain vigilant and aim to nip misuse in the bud.
Dhurandhar (2025) and its sequel, Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026), are Hindi langauage spy action-thrillers produced by Jio Studios and B62 Studios that performed extremely well at the box office. Several strong characters carry the films – and one such character - going by the name of Jameel Jamali – too became very popular. Jameel Jamali is a Pakistani politician played by an actor named Rakesh Bedi, whose dialogues and mannerisms went viral on social media.
In the 2026 case of Reliance Industries Limited (through its Media and Entertainment Division, Jio Studios) v. Masterchow Foods Private Limited & Ors.2, Jio Studios sued a food brand, Masterchow, before the Bombay High Court, after it unauthorisedly ran an advertisement featuring Jameel Jamali's image and likeness as depicted in the film. The dispute was resolved by consent: Masterchow acknowledged that Jio Studios and B62 Studios jointly own the copyright in the character and agreed not to use any part of the film or related material without prior written permission in future. The Court further passed an order directing online intermediaries to take down copies of the advertisement that had been re-shared by unidentified third parties on social media.
Moment Marketing
In parallel, this suit also brings another significant legal phenomena into focus: moment marketing - a strategy where brands create fast, relevant content to connect with current trends, breaking news, pop culture, or live events.
Rakesh Bedi made the most of his moment of success. Riding the viral wave of memes and reels that followed the franchise's release, he began using Jameel Jamali's now-iconic dialogues in his own brand deals and commercial advertisements. This might, at first glance, appear to sit uneasily with Jio Studios' copyright claim against Masterchow over the very same character. But the distinction lies in the legal boundary between a producer's copyright and performer's rights (under Section 38A of the Act). Bedi, as the performer, could commercially exploit his manner of dialogue delivery under his performer's rights without infringing Jio Studios' copyright in the character itself.
To elaborate, being the performer of the character, Bedi holds rights of his own. However, it is important to note that these are distinct from, and narrower than, the copyright in the film itself, which, as discussed above, vests in the producer as first owner. On this point, we have a Supreme Court ruling in Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977), where it was held that a performer's contribution merges into the producer's copyright once the performer consents to its incorporation in the film.
Bedi's rights are correspondingly limited. They extend to being credited for his performance, objecting to any distortion prejudicial to his reputation, and preventing unauthorised reproduction of the performance itself - his manner of delivery of the dialogues, for instance, rather than to the character of Jameel Jamali as such. This explains why Bedi could commercially exploit his dialogues in the film in his own brand deals without infringing Jio Studios' copyright, while Masterchow's unauthorised use of the character's image and likeness was actionable by Jio Studios.
What About Amul?
In this backdrop, it is worth mentioning the example of an iconic Indian brand which has managed to repeatedly portray characters having their moment in the sun without incurring any liabilities even though it sits well outside the producer’s and performer’s rights under the copyright law framework. The brand is a globally recognised Indian dairy co-operative – AMUL. Amul Butter is a household staple in India and its recipe includes its own iconic character – a young girl with a distinctive dress, image, and likeness (the Amul Moppet) - as well as a clever dash of parody.
For decades, Amul has used the latest political, geo-political, cultural, and pop-cultural developments to provide satirical commentary while promoting their brand at the same time.
Its advertisements typically reference real-life people and events channelled through the Amul Moppet in a witty social or cultural commentary. Thus, instead of replicating the persona or image of the actual character or using copyrighted dialogues, the advertisements employ original, humorous taglines as wordplays on the ongoing trend. Notably, the distinctive features of the Amul Moppet, combined with Amul’s unique and original captioning style, help distinguish its advertisements from a direct or substantial reproduction of the films in question and thereby mitigate the risk of potential liabilities.
This approach maintains both creative originality and mitigates the risk of copyright infringement, as the advertisements act as an independent expression rather than a direct or substantial reproduction of protected material.
Compliance checklist for brands
The Masterchow dispute and Rakesh Bedi's own brand deals make the point that liability for using a film character does not turn on whether a right exists, but on whose right is being used.
For advertisers, therefore, before incorporating any film character, dialogue, costume, or recognisable reference into a campaign, the safest question to ask is not simply “Do we need permission?”, but “What exactly are we using, and whose permission might we need?”
There is also a second, licence-free route, and Amul demonstrates it: original parody and satirical commentary that channels a cultural moment through the brand's own distinctive character and voice, rather than reproducing the film's expression.
As a safeguard, a legal review should be considered prior to the publication of marketing campaigns rather than fighting infringement claims post publication. A “prevention is better than cure” ideology can go a long way in saving costs and reputation for major brands.
Footnotes
1 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
2 Reliance Industries Ltd v. Masterchow Foods Private Ltd & Ors., Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 14751 of 2026 (Bombay High Court); see https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-orders-takedown-of-ad-featuring-dhurandhar-film-character
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
