The intersection of entertainment and intellectual property law is once again in the spotlight. Recently, producer Firoz A. Nadiadwala served a ₹25 crore legal notice on Netflix and the makers of The Great Indian Kapil Show for allegedly misusing one of Bollywood’s most iconic characters—Baburao Ganpatrao Apte from Hera Pheri.
The controversy arose after a promo for the show’s finale featured comedian Kiku Sharda dressed as Baburao, a character immortalised by Paresh Rawal. Nadiadwala, who owns the rights to the film and its characters, claims this was done without consent. His team argues it amounts to both copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and trade mark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
This dispute highlights a broader, more nuanced issue: what happens when fictional characters—often loved far beyond their original films—are reused without permission? Do they belong to the public, or do rights holders retain control?
Copyright and Fictional Characters
Under the Copyright Act, fictional characters are protected if they display sufficient originality and distinctiveness. For instance, Baburao is not merely “a funny middle-aged landlord”; he has unique quirks, expressions, and dialogue that make him a distinctive creation.
However, copyright is time-limited. In India, it typically lasts for the author’s life plus sixty years. Once that period expires, the work—including its characters—enters the public domain, where anyone can use it freely.
According to media reports, the Hera Pheri team has stated that the film is still well within copyright. This means that using the character Baburao without permission could amount to infringement
Trade Mark Protection: A Stronger Shield
Even more significant is trade mark law, which offers protection independent of copyright. If a character’s name, appearance, or even catchphrases carry commercial value, they may be registered as trade marks. Unlike copyright, trade mark rights can last indefinitely with proper use and renewal.
Indian courts have affirmed this principle:
Thus, even when copyright eventually lapses, trade mark law can continue to protect a character such as Baburao if it has acquired cultural distinctiveness and commercial goodwill.
Public Domain vs. Private Rights
This overlap creates what legal scholars call the “public domain dilemma”:
So, whilst an independent filmmaker may one day legally create a new version of Baburao for artistic purposes, using the character in a commercial comedy sketch or for branding could still infringe trade mark rights.
The Netflix–Kapil Sharma Case in Context
Applied to the current dispute, Nadiadwala’s argument rests on two pillars:
Netflix and the show’s producers may invoke parody, fair use, or claim there was no commercial exploitation. However, Indian courts have traditionally been cautious where iconic characters are concerned, especially when their commercial goodwill is undeniable.
Lessons for Creators and Businesses
This case underscores an important message for the creative and entertainment sectors:
Final Word
The Netflix–Kapil Sharma dispute is more than a legal quarrel; it reflects the growing tension between public access and private control in India’s entertainment landscape. Characters like Baburao transcend the screen to become part of popular culture. Yet, when culture collides with commerce, the law often favours ownership.
For creators, the warning is clear: what makes audiences laugh may not always make rights holders smile.
By Apsara Menon
Share This News