Console to courtroom: decoding India’s safeguarding of video game characters

Characters play a vital role in the world of video games, as they are the heart of the story. Protecting these characters is therefore essential for a gaming company to gain traction and monetise them in a market that is experiencing significant growth.

The global video game market was valued at $274.63 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach approximately $721.77 billion by 2034, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.15%. The Asia-Pacific region is a major contributor, with its market size expected to reach $166.91 billion in 2025 and expand at a CAGR of 10.24% during the forecast period.

India’s gaming market is experiencing particularly rapid growth, with projections indicating a rise from $5.83 billion in 2025 to $22.53 billion by 2034, a CAGR of 16.20%. This surge is driven by the widespread adoption of smartphones, affordable internet access, and a young, tech-savvy population. According to a forecast in Dentsu’s Gaming Report India 2022, summarised here, there are 700 million gamers in India in FY 2025, compared with 507 million in 2021.

Technological advancements such as 5G, cloud gaming, and augmented reality are further shaping the market. As the gaming industry in India evolves and diversifies, however, it grapples with legal challenges concerning intellectual property rights. One prominent issue is the ambiguity surrounding the copyright protection of video game content.

India’s Copyright Act, 1957 does not explicitly mention “video game characters” or “fictional characters”, but it does provide protection to artistic works under Section 2(c). In India, video games are considered “creative works” and may be protected by copyright law.

The primary elements of a video game – such as the storyline, characters, music, and parts of the code – may be protected under different categories of “works”, as per Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The 1994 amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, under Section 2(o), introduced rights concerning software programs. The act defines an “author” as someone who creates any literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work that is computer generated.

Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a work is considered the first owner of the copyright. Therefore, a video game character can be seen as an artistic work and is eligible for protection under copyright law, provided the character is original and sufficiently creative.

Additionally, as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, India protects “literary and artistic works” as outlined in Article 2 of the convention.

Indian case law does not directly address copyright protection of video game characters. However, the courts have delivered several verdicts on the copyrightability of fictional characters in India.

In V.T. Thomas and Ors v Malayala Manorama Co Ltd (1987), the High Court of Kerala ruled that Thomas, not the publishing company, owned the copyright to the characters Boban and Molly because he created them before joining the company. The court clarified that while the company controlled the comic strips made during his employment, it could not claim ownership of the characters. This established that the creator retained the copyright over the characters, while the company only had rights to the comic episodes. However, the court did not discuss the broader conditions under which a character could gain copyright protection.

In Arbaaz Khan v North Star Entertainment Pvt Ltd (2016), the High Court of Bombay addressed copyright protection for the character Chulbul Pandey from the Dabangg film series. The court acknowledged that a character’s copyrightability hinges on its distinctiveness and originality. It stated that a character’s unique portrayal and its depiction in underlying literary works can be protected under copyright law. Therefore, the protection of a character’s copyright is contingent upon its unique and original attributes.

The unlawful use of characters from the popular Hindi soap opera Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi in a commercial was deemed a case of copyright infringement in Star India v Leo Burnett (High Court of Bombay, 2002). It was alleged that the characters had copyright protection and that the producers had not authorised their use in the advertising. The court only considered the copyright that exists on a fictitious character, not the conditions that must be met to use copyright laws to protect a character.

In Raja Pocket Books v Radha Pocket Books (1996), the defendant duplicated the comic character Nagraj and called his comic Nagesh. The High Court of Delhi noted that the characteristics of the figures in question were similar, in that they had a serpentine-like aspect, with red belts. The court found that not just the concept, but also the expression, had been copied. For the duration of the lawsuit, the court issued an interim order prohibiting the defendant from disseminating stickers, posters, or other materials depicting the persona known as Nagesh.

In Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Anr v Parag Sanghavi and Ors (2015), the High Court of Delhi fined director Ram Gopal Varma INR1 million in damages for “intentionally and deliberately” remaking the blockbuster Sholay, violating Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd’s exclusive copyright and misusing the characters Gabbar Singh, Jai, Veeru, and Radha.

While copyright protects the creative aspects of a character, trademark law helps to safeguard the brand identity associated with a character. A trademark can protect a character’s name, logo, and any distinctive elements associated with it that distinguish the relevant brand or product in the marketplace.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 also does not specifically address video game characters; however, the definition of a trademark is broad and includes a mark capable of being represented graphically. This protection typically applies when the character is distinctive enough to act as a brand identifier. Trademark protection helps to prevent others from using the same character, or a confusingly similar one, for commercial purposes. For example, the names of some of the best-known video game characters are registered with the EUIPO (Lara Croft, Super Mario, Pac-Man, and Pikachu are EU trademarks). Super Mario, Sonic, and Pikachu are trademarked globally, including in India, because they have become identifiers of brands and goods beyond video games.

The Designs Act, 2000 protects the aesthetic appearance of a product, including the design of characters, as long as they are original and non-functional. The act only applies to the visual appearance of a character, not the concept or personality traits. The visual aspects include the character’s physical appearance, such as their clothing, body type, hairstyle, accessories, and overall style. This protection is more limited than under copyright and trademark law. Generally, toys and merchandise representing a character in physical form may be protected under the Designs Act, 2000. For a character of a video game to benefit from protection and registration under the Designs Act, 2000, it must meet the criteria in Section 4 – i.e., novelty and originality – and must not have been previously disclosed.

The rapid evolution of the gaming industry presents significant challenges. The copyright, trademark, and design laws applicable to the gaming industry are continuously evolving and may sometimes seem inadequate to protect and promote innovation and creativity. These challenges are exacerbated by the lack of harmonisation of the laws governing the video game industry globally.