In a dramatic twist for Bollywood’s comedy scene, Netflix and the makers of The Great Indian Kapil Show have been slapped with a ₹25 crore legal notice by veteran producer Firoz A. Nadiadwala, alleging copyright and trademark violations over the unauthorized use of the iconic Baburao Ganpatrao Apte character from the cult classic Hera Pheri. The dispute erupted following a promotional skit in the show’s finale episode featuring guest Akshay Kumar, where comedian Kiku Sharda impersonated the beloved, bumbling landlord originally portrayed by Paresh Rawal. For fans and legal watchers searching Netflix Baburao lawsuit, Hera Pheri copyright infringement, or Kapil Sharma show legal notice, this case highlights the growing scrutiny on character parodies in Indian entertainment, potentially setting precedents for IP protection in comedy.
As the episode streams on Netflix starting September 20, 2025, the controversy threatens to overshadow the laughs. Let’s break down the allegations, demands, and broader implications.
The Skit That Sparked the Storm: What Happened in the Episode?
The finale of The Great Indian Kapil Show—hosted by Kapil Sharma and featuring a star-studded cast including Kiku Sharda and Krushna Abhishek—welcomed Akshay Kumar to promote his upcoming film Jolly LLB 3. In a bid to tie into Kumar’s Hera Pheri legacy (where he played Raju), Sharda donned Baburao’s signature disheveled look, complete with the character’s quirky mannerisms and catchphrases like “Yeh Baburao ka style hai!”
Nadiadwala, who produced both Hera Pheri (2000) and its sequel Phir Hera Pheri (2006), claims this was a blatant rip-off of his intellectual property. The promo video, shared across social media, quickly went viral, amassing millions of views before the legal hammer dropped on September 19, 2025.
The producer’s team argues that Baburao isn’t just a fleeting joke—it’s a “registered trademark” owned by the Nadiadwala family, integral to the franchise’s ₹500+ crore box-office success and cultural staying power.
Legal Allegations: Copyright and Trademark Infringement Breakdown
The legal notice, drafted by Nadiadwala’s lawyer and former Bigg Boss 17 contestant Sana Raees Khan, invokes key provisions of Indian law:
- Copyright Act, 1957: Violations under Section 51 (infringement of copyright) and Section 14 (exclusive rights to communicate the work to the public and include it in cinematograph films). The skit allegedly exploits the character’s dialogues, appearance, and persona without permission.
- Trademarks Act, 1999: Infringement under Section 29, as “Baburao” is a protected mark, diluting its commercial value for unauthorized gain.
Khan emphasized: “The unauthorised use of my client’s iconic character is not just infringement; it is blatant theft for commercial gain. Culture is not for exploitation, it is for preservation.” Nadiadwala holds the full rights to the character, and no consent was sought from him or Rawal.
This isn’t the first IP clash in comedy—similar suits have targeted parodies in shows like AIB Knockoff—but the ₹25 crore demand underscores the escalating stakes in Bollywood’s content wars.
| Legal Provision | Violation Claimed | Relevant Section |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright Infringement | Unauthorized use of character in promo/skit | Section 51 & 14, Copyright Act 1957 |
| Trademark Infringement | Dilution of “Baburao” mark for commercial purposes | Section 29, Trademarks Act 1999 |
Demands in the Notice: Swift Action or Court Battle
The notice lays out aggressive timelines and remedies:
- Immediate Removal: All Baburao segments must be pulled from Netflix, social media, and partner platforms right away.
- Apology and Assurance: A written public apology within 24 hours, plus a binding commitment to never use the character without explicit permission.
- Compensation: ₹25 crore in damages, payable within two days of receipt—framed as redress for lost licensing opportunities and reputational harm.
Failure to comply triggers civil suits for injunctions and damages, plus criminal proceedings under the Copyright Act (up to three years imprisonment and fines). As of September 22, 2025, Netflix and the show’s producers (K9 Productions) have not publicly responded, but sources indicate internal reviews are underway.
Broader Implications: A Wake-Up Call for Comedy and Streaming Giants
This lawsuit arrives amid a surge in IP enforcement in India, fueled by the booming OTT market (valued at ₹12,000 crore in 2025) and high-profile cases like Nayanthara’s ₹5 crore notice over an AI-generated deepfake in a Netflix docuseries. For Netflix, already navigating content localization mandates, it spotlights risks in adapting global formats like talk shows to desi humor.
- For Creators: Parodies walk a fine line—fair use under Section 52 of the Copyright Act allows satire, but commercial exploitation without nods to originals invites trouble.
- Industry Ripple: Could chill celebrity cameos and cross-franchise gags, especially with Hera Pheri 3 in the works (starring Rawal, Kumar, and Suniel Shetty).
- Global Lens: Echoes Hollywood battles, like the Barbie movie’s IP skirmishes, but in India’s context, it reinforces producer clout over viral memes.
Fans are divided: Some hail Nadiadwala for safeguarding legacies, while others decry it as overkill for a light-hearted bit. Rawal himself has stayed silent, focusing on his political duties.
Conclusion: Will Baburao’s Legacy Outlive the Laughs?
The ₹25 crore Netflix lawsuit over Baburao isn’t just tabloid fodder—it’s a stark reminder that in Bollywood’s remix culture, icons like the hapless landlord come with a price tag. As The Great Indian Kapil Show bows out amid this buzz, the outcome could redefine boundaries for comedy in the streaming era. For those tracking Bollywood IP disputes 2025 or Hera Pheri updates, expect court filings soon if demands go unmet. Could this lead to a settlement cameo in Hera Pheri 3? Only time—and lawyers—will tell.
