What to know about the Queen 2 unauthorized sequel lawsuit

Record status, last verified: August 3, 2026, UTC. This record concerns Phantom Studios India Private Limited v. JioStar India Private Limited & Anr., Commercial Suit (L) No. 22856 of 2026 and Interim Application (L) No. 23075 of 2026, cited as 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 391, before the Bombay High Court. The order presently driving the risk analysis is Justice Gauri Godse’s July 9, 2026 order declining urgent ad-interim relief; the matter was listed next for August 4, 2026. [1][2][3]

The controlling point is narrower than many headlines make it sound. This is not, at least on the present record, a simple copyright-comparison dispute over whether a new film is too similar to Queen. Phantom’s case is built on alleged contract rights in sequels, prequels, remakes, and derivative exploitation. The July 9 refusal of urgent relief was a timing-and-pleadings ruling: the court found no pleaded urgency warranting immediate intervention at that stage. It was not a finding that Phantom does not own the claimed 50% share. [2][3]

What Phantom says it owns

Phantom’s pleaded theory starts with a 2012 co-production agreement for the original Queen film and continues through a 2022 deed of novation. As reported from the plaint materials, Phantom says those documents left it and the JioStar side with joint 50/50 ownership of the franchise’s derivative rights, including sequel, prequel, remake, and related exploitation rights. [4]

That framing matters. If the asserted 50/50 rights structure is accepted, the practical complaint is not merely that the new project borrows from the earlier work. It is that one alleged co-owner cannot unilaterally proceed with a sequel or franchise extension without the other alleged co-owner’s consent. Phantom says no such consent was given for the new film, reported under the working title Queen Forever, produced by JioStar, formerly Viacom18, with Trigger Happy Entertainment, directed by Vikas Bahl and starring Kangana Ranaut. [4]

The pleaded timeline also explains why the interim application is not just a request to stop a release. Phantom’s position, as reported, is that it had asserted its rights from May 2025 and that the defendants proceeded despite those assertions. JioStar’s counsel, however, is reported to have told the court that JioStar had replied to a legal notice in April 2026. Those are competing litigation positions, not settled findings. [3][4]

Reliefs sought

The relief package is a useful risk signal for studios and platforms because it reaches beyond a bare injunction. Phantom is reported to have sought permanent and interim restraints against the alleged unauthorized sequel, mandatory disclosures relating to the project, a 50% revenue share, and ₹250 crore in damages. The ₹250 crore figure is a claimed amount in the plaint. It is not an award, a penalty, or a judicial valuation of the dispute. [4][5]

• Injunction relief: restraints aimed at stopping or limiting exploitation of the alleged sequel project. [4][5]
• Mandatory disclosure: information about the film, exploitation, and related arrangements. [4]
• Revenue claim: a 50% share said to follow from the alleged joint ownership structure. [4]
• Damages: ₹250 crore claimed in the plaint, not granted by the court. [5]

What the July 9 order did

On July 9, 2026, the Bombay High Court declined urgent ad-interim relief. The operative reason reported from the order was delay as reflected in Phantom’s own pleadings: the court noted that the pleadings showed awareness from early 2025 and assertion of rights from May 2025, but did not plead urgency in a way that justified immediate urgent ad-interim intervention. [2][3]

The court also refused to rely on a July 1, 2026 interview of the lead actress that Phantom invoked to support urgency, because that material was not part of the pleadings before the court. That is a pleading point with real consequences: a fact may be attention-grabbing outside court and still be unusable for immediate relief if it is not properly placed on the record. [3][6]

The order allowed the defendants time to file replies and listed the matter for August 4, 2026. Reported coverage states that the film could proceed for the time being. That is not the same as a final clearance of the project; it means the court did not stop it at the urgent ad-interim stage on the record then before it. [3][6]

What the order did not decide

The July 9 order should not be described as Phantom losing the sequel-rights case. It did not finally decide whether the 2012 co-production agreement and 2022 deed of novation give Phantom the claimed 50% co-ownership. It did not finally decide whether the defendants have breached those documents. It did not convert the ₹250 crore damages claim into an assessed liability.

For a brief to a general counsel or editor, the safer formulation is: the Bombay High Court declined urgent ad-interim relief because urgency was not adequately pleaded, while the underlying derivative-rights ownership claim remains to be answered on the parties’ filings.

JioStar’s reported position

JioStar’s reported defense is that the new film is an original, independent story with no creative connection to the earlier work, and that Phantom cannot claim a monopoly over the common English word “Queen.” [6]

That defense speaks partly in copyright vocabulary, but the center of the pleaded fight remains contractual. If the court later has to decide the ownership issue, it will have to address what the 2012 and 2022 documents did with derivative and franchise rights, not only whether two films are substantially similar.

Franchise context, separated from the court record

The commercial reason this dispute is being watched is straightforward. The earlier Queen was a 2014 Hindi film associated with Vikas Bahl, Kangana Ranaut, and the original Phantom Films circle. The present project is being reported as a sequel or franchise continuation involving some of the same public-facing names. [4][5]

That background explains attention; it does not decide the interim application. Awards history, box-office reporting, casting history, and industry fallout may help readers place the dispute culturally, but the July 9 ruling turned on the pleadings and the absence of pleaded urgency.

Status check before relying on this record

As last verified on August 3, 2026, the known procedural status was that the defendants had time to reply and the matter was listed for August 4, 2026. Because that listing falls immediately after this verification date, any publication, client alert, or newsroom update issued after the hearing date should re-check the July 9 order PDF, the Bombay High Court docket if available, and current court reporting before stating the present status. [2][3]

The verified position stops there: urgent ad-interim relief was refused on timing and pleadings; the underlying 50% derivative-rights claim remains unresolved on the materials cited here.

References

1. LiveLawBiz IPR Weekly Digest July 06 - July 12, 2026, LiveLawBiz
2. Primary order PDF (July 9, 2026), LiveLawBiz, July 9, 2026
3. Bombay High Court Declines Urgent Relief In Phantom Studios' Suit Against JioStar Over Queen Remake, LiveLawBiz
4. Phantom Studios Jio Star Queen Lawsuit, MediaNama, July 2026
5. Phantom Studios sues JioStar India in Bombay High Court over Queen sequel, seeks ₹250 crore damages, Bar & Bench, July 7, 2026
6. Bombay High Court denies urgent relief to Phantom Studios in suit against JioStar over Queen sequel, Bar & Bench, July 9, 2026