What happenedCult comedy Andaz Apna Apna may have hit the screens 30 years ago but its dialogues are still everywhere - on memes, mugs, caps, T-shirts. Amar, Prem, Teja, Gogo aren’t just characters but merchandise worth flaunting.
Last week, the
Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction protecting the film’s IP - its characters, catchphrases, and one-liners from unauthorised use. The case was filed by the family of late producer Vinay Sinha, who flagged a growing black market of merch, AI content, dodgy domains, and social posts ripping off the film’s most recognisable catch phrases and dialogues. Think: “Aila” on coffee mugs, “Teja main hoon” on posters, Gogo quotes stuffed into AI videos.
‘The HC has recognised the importance of protecting creative works from rampant misappropriation’Ameet Naik, who represented the producers, said, “This order is a resounding affirmation of the rights of legacy content creators in the digital age. Andaz Apna Apna is not just a film, it's a part of India’s cultural heritage, and its characters and dialogues enjoy iconic status. The Delhi High Court has recognized the importance of protecting creative works from rampant misappropriation, including by unauthorised merchandise sellers and AI-based content generators. We are grateful for the Court’s timely intervention and believe this order will serve as a critical precedent for safeguarding IP in cinema, especially against newer forms of digital exploitation.”
What the court saidThe Delhi HC held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff (makers of the fim), noting that unauthorised products may mislead the public into believing they were officially licensed. “Any objections to the quality of the defendants’ products will be attributable to the plaintiff, as the public would have purchased such goods under the mistaken impression that they emanate from the plaintiff,” the HC said.
What’s being protectedEverything from Amar-Prem’s banter to Crime Master Gogo’s iconic one-liners,
Andaz Apna Apna delivered peak absurdity and unforgettable cult comedy. The producer's family also cited trademarks on “Aila” and “Ouima,” claiming the phrases have taken on secondary meaning - a
legal term for when pop culture becomes so recognisable that people instantly associate it with a specific source.
It is submitted that the film contains several iconic dialogues and catchphrases that have, over time, acquired immense popularity and gained recognition. Due to their extensive use, they have become instantly recognisable and developed a strong secondary meaning in the minds of the public as being exclusively associated with the film.
The issues raised by the producers- Given the likely inferior nature of these goods, there is a real threat of tarnishment and dilution of the intellectual property in the said film
- The unauthorised use by the defendants of iconic dialogues, settings from iconic scenes from the film, constitutes infringement of copyright in the literary work and the cinematographic film itself
YouTube, GoDaddy, Flipkart, Meesho, Desertcart have been told to take down infringing content, block access. The HC has restrained two dozen platforms and creators from --- Using any content identical to or derived from the film
--- Manufacturing or selling any merchandise or products bearing the film’s IP
--- Creating AI-based or digital works that exploit the characters or dialogues
After reviewing the plaintiff’s documents and over 70 infringing URLs, the Court issued a series of interim directions, including:Restraining various defendants from:“...creating any content, including images, videos, audio-visual content, or AI-generated content which is identical to, adapted from, or derivative of the plaintiff’s film Andaz Apna Apna”
Restraining sale and promotion of goods bearing marks deceptively similar to the film’s registered trademarks and character names such as Teja, Crime Master Gogo, Amar and Prem
Directing Google LLC (Defendant 26) to “...take down, remove, and disable the infringing videos, shorts, or other content uploaded by defendants no. 19 to 21…” Google was also asked to disclose details of the uploaders of identified YouTube Shorts