Kangana Ranaut's Queen 2 Faces Legal Trouble As Phantom Studios Sues JioStar For ₹250 Crore: Report

Kangana Ranaut-starrer Queen 2 has reportedly run into legal trouble soon after the film completed shooting. Phantom Studios filed a Rs 250 crore lawsuit against JioStar in the Bombay High Court, alleging that the upcoming film is an "unauthorised sequel" and infringes upon the intellectual property (IP) rights of the original Queen.

JioStar India Private Limited, the respondent in the case, informed the court on Tuesday that the upcoming film is an original, standalone project and not a sequel to the earlier title.

The sequel, which reunites Ranaut with director Vikas Bahl, began filming earlier this year and has reportedly entered the post-production stage after recently wrapping up production.

According to a report in Midday, sources stated that Phantom Studios initiated legal proceedings after multiple attempts to resolve the issue with JioStar failed. The production house claims it had repeatedly communicated its concerns regarding the alleged infringement before approaching the court.

“Their non action is what has led to Phantom Studios suing them for infringement. There was even a public notice put out and multiple communications sent to Vikas and JioStar as well, informing them before this step was taken,” informed a source close to the development.

Another insider said Phantom Studios decided to move ahead legally after learning that Queen 2 had completed filming.

The original Queen (2014), which won two National Awards, including the Best Actor honour for Kangana, was jointly produced by Viacom18 Motion Pictures and Phantom Films, founded by Anurag Kashyap, Vikramaditya Motwane, Madhu Mantena and Vikas Bahl. Although Phantom Films was dissolved in 2018, the banner was revived as Phantom Studios in 2021.

Phantom Studios has alleged that it owns 50 per cent of the intellectual property rights to Queen, including the right to produce sequels. In a public notice issued in April, the studio stated that it had not granted consent for the development of any "adaptation or derivative works" based on the film.

The lawsuit, reportedly, follows "repeated communication" and "settlement discussions" between the two parties before legal action was initiated.