The Bombay High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction against the production and release of Queen Forever, the reported sequel to Kangana Ranaut’s 2014 hit film Queen. The decision comes after Phantom Studios India Pvt Ltd approached the court, claiming that it jointly owns the intellectual property rights to the original film with JioStar India Pvt Ltd.
The legal dispute centres on whether JioStar can proceed with a sequel or other derivative work based on Queen without Phantom Studios’ consent. While Phantom Studios sought urgent temporary relief to stop the project from moving forward, the court declined to grant an interim injunction at this stage.
The order does not, by itself, settle the underlying dispute over ownership and derivative rights.
Why Did Phantom Studios Approach the Bombay High Court?
Phantom Studios, the co-producer of Queen, told the court that it and JioStar India each own 50% of the intellectual property rights in the original film. According to the studio’s suit, their co-production agreement clearly states that rights to derivative works must be shared equally between the two parties.
These rights reportedly include sequels, prequels, remakes, adaptations and other projects based on the original film, its characters, story or other elements.
Phantom Studios argued that any decision to develop or produce a sequel would therefore require its consent. The studio claimed that it had not authorised the proposed project and that JioStar had continued with its plans despite receiving caution notices.
Phantom Studios Says It Issued Notices to JioStar
According to the suit, Phantom Studios had issued several caution notices to JioStar since April 2026, asking the company to cease and desist from proceeding with plans for a sequel or other content that could create an association with Queen.
The studio also alleged that JioStar had refused to disclose details of the project despite these notices.
Describing Queen as a critically acclaimed and commercially successful film, Phantom Studios argued that the original had built substantial goodwill since its release in 2014. It maintained that the shared intellectual property rights protected both parties’ interests in any future work derived from the film.
The dispute has consequently raised questions about how the rights to a successful film are handled when its co-producers disagree over a proposed sequel.
What Relief Did Phantom Studios Seek?
Citing the urgency of the matter and the reported plans to release Queen Forever in the coming months, Phantom Studios sought a temporary injunction against JioStar and other parties involved in the project.
The studio wanted the court to restrain them from making, developing, producing, shooting, completing, releasing, distributing, broadcasting, streaming, marketing, promoting, advertising or otherwise exploiting a sequel, prequel, remake, adaptation or derivative work under the titles Queen Forever or Queen 2 without its prior written consent.
The request was aimed at preventing the project from progressing while the court considered the dispute over intellectual property ownership and the parties’ contractual obligations.
Bombay High Court Declines Interim Injunction
A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne refused to grant the interim relief sought by Phantom Studios. As a result, the court did not impose the requested temporary restraint against the production and release of Queen Forever at this stage.
The dispute, however, centres on more than the film’s release date. It involves the interpretation of the co-production agreement and whether the proposed sequel falls within the derivative rights that Phantom Studios claims are jointly owned.
The refusal of interim relief should not be interpreted as a final determination that JioStar has exclusive rights to make the sequel or that Phantom Studios’ claims have been rejected on their merits. The underlying legal questions remain distinct from the immediate request for an injunction.
Why the ‘Queen Forever’ Dispute Matters
Released in 2014, Queen earned critical acclaim and commercial success, with Kangana Ranaut’s performance forming a central part of the film’s appeal. The proposed sequel has drawn attention because of its connection to the original film and the legal disagreement between its co-producers.
The case also highlights a broader issue in the entertainment industry: ownership of a film does not necessarily mean that one producer can independently exercise every right connected to it. The scope of a co-production agreement can become particularly important when a sequel, remake or adaptation is planned.
For now, the Bombay High Court has declined to grant the temporary injunction sought by Phantom Studios. The wider dispute over the ownership and use of Queen’s intellectual property rights remains at the centre of the case.
