Ever wanted to sip at MacLaren’s Pub, taste a Bertie Bott’s bean, or drive the Batmobile? Some of it’s been made real. But when a fictional product crosses into the real world — or a real brand appears in a film — the IP questions are fascinating.
Fantasy products in the real world
As Walt Disney said, “fantasy and reality often overlap.” Recreating a fictional product in the real world has a technical name — reverse product placement. Two scenarios:
- The creator/owner replicates their own fictional product in real life — no problem; they’re enjoying the benefits of their own work.
- Someone else does it to make commercial gain off another’s work — that’s the issue.
Since the works involved (books, films) are protected by copyright, and Indian law is clear that only the owner may reproduce the work in any material form, an unauthorised recreation of a fictional product can infringe copyright. (Real-world examples that exist: Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans, Duff Beer, the Willy Wonka Chocolate Bar, and a pop-up Central Perk for Friends’ 20th anniversary.)
Real trademarks in the fantasy world
The reverse — using real brands in books/films (Starbucks coffee, an iPhone) — helps audiences relate. Does trademark law prevent it? In India, a registered mark is infringed by spoken use and visual representation — the law provides no express exception for uses that don’t defame or harm reputation, so it’s for the trademark owner to decide whether to treat it as infringing.
Owners have sued on reputation grounds:
- Rooh Afza’s makers sued a film for showing the product in a poor light, damaging reputation;
- popular Bollywood songs referencing Fevicol and Zandu Balm drew objections, later settled.
In the US, The Dark Knight Rises used the registered mark “Clean Slate” — a real data-erasing software — for fictional software erasing a person’s past. The court called it reverse confusion (a later user’s product assumed to be the prior user’s), but held the prior user couldn’t show confusion because the film’s product was fictional, and the use was artistically relevant and not misleading. (One can still argue it’s a trademark infringement.)
The common thread
In every case, the consumer relates to the reference — which is exactly what the makers target. Such crossovers will keep broadening the scope of IP law; we’ll have to wait for more cases to see what lies ahead.
The takeaways
- Reverse product placement can infringe copyright — if someone other than the owner recreates a fictional product commercially.
- Real brands in films can infringe — India has no express exception; it’s the owner’s call.
- Reputation grounds drive suits — Rooh Afza, Fevicol, Zandu Balm.
- Fictional-product marks are hard to claim on — no real-world confusion (US “Clean Slate”).
Frequently asked questions
Can I make a real product based on a fictional one from a book or film? Only the copyright owner can reproduce the work; someone else recreating a fictional product for commercial gain can infringe copyright — “reverse product placement.”
Can films use real brand names? In India there’s no express exception, so a registered mark can be infringed by spoken or visual use — though it’s for the owner to decide whether to act, often on reputation grounds.
What is reverse confusion? Where a later user’s product is assumed to be the prior user’s — as argued in the US “Clean Slate”/Dark Knight case, though the claim failed because the film’s product was fictional.
Have real brands sued over film depictions in India? Yes — Rooh Afza sued over a poor-light depiction; Fevicol and Zandu Balm song references drew objections that were settled.
Legislation referred to
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999