Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh laid down two prong test to solve the conundrum produced by Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited (2025) Case?   

• Two appeals arise from a common judgment dated 22nd October 2024, by the Gujarat High Court concerning a copyright infringement dispute. 
• The case involves Inox India Limited (Respondent) against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India Private Limited (Appellants) regarding alleged IP infringement related to Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems. 
• Inox filed a Trademark Suit on 24th September 2018, alleging the Appellants infringed copyright in their Proprietary Engineering Drawings and Literary Works for LNG Semi-trailers. 
• Inox sought declarations of infringement, permanent injunctions against using their drawings and IP, surrender of infringing materials, and damages of Rs. 2 Crores. 
• LNG Express filed an application to reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), claiming the drawings were actually "designs" under the Designs Act, 2000 (DA) and ineligible for copyright protection after 50 industrial reproductions. 
• The Commercial Court initially allowed LNG Express's application on 1st April 2022, rejecting Inox's plaint and interim injunction request. 
• The High Court set aside this order on 13th March 2024, and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court. 
• On 3rd May 2024, the Commercial Court again rejected Inox's plaint and dismissed their interim injunction application. 
• The High Court, through the Impugned Judgment, set aside the Commercial Court's orders, ruling that it erred in presuming the drawings qualified as "designs" under the Designs Act. 
• The High Court restored the original suit and directed the Commercial Court to decide on the interim injunction application within eight weeks.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court determined the following two issues: 
  • What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an article falls within the limitation set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (CA) thereby classifying it as a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the DA? 
  • Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC? 
• The Court first of all analyzed the laws applicable for protection under the Copyright Act. 
• The Court observed that ‘artistic work’ under Section 2 (c) of the CA has a wide connotation and enjoys protection under Section 14 (c) of the CA. 
• However, if the artistic work is reproduced through an industrial process (manual, mechanical, or chemical) resulting in a visually appealing article, the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition constitute a 'design' under Section 2(d) of the DA. 
• While an 'artistic work' qualifies for copyright protection, its commercial or industrial application (the 'design') is subject to limitations under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. 
• A design derived from an artistic work receives protection only if registered under the DA. 'Artistic work' has a broad definition, while 'design' is restricted to specific features (shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or color composition) applied industrially to create visually appealing products. 
• Works not qualifying as 'artistic works' under the Copyright Act do not automatically receive protection under the DA. Protection under the DA is less enduring than under the Copyright Act and requires meeting specific criteria. 
• Courts apply the 'functional utility' test to determine if a work qualifies for protection under the Designs Act. 
• The Court in this case laid down two pronged approach in order to crack open the conundrum caused by Section 15 (2) of CA: 
  • Whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the CA or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the CA. 
  • If such a work does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of ‘functional utility’ will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant purpose, and then ascertain whether it would qualify for design protection under the DA. 
• The Court held that the High Court was correct in laying down that the question as to whether the original artistic work will fall within the meaning of design cannot be answered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

What is Design?

• Section 2 (d) of DA defines the term “design”. 
• A "design" refers to features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors applied to articles in either two-dimensional or three-dimensional forms. 
• These features must be applied through an industrial process (manual, mechanical, or chemical) and must appeal visually in the finished article. 
• The definition explicitly excludes: 
  • Any mode or principle of construction 
  • Anything that is essentially a mechanical device 
  • Trademarks as defined under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 
  • Property marks as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
  • Artistic works as defined in section 2(c) of the CA.

Which Provision Provides for Interplay Between Design and Copyright? 

• Section 15 (1) provides that copyright protection does not subsist in any design that is registered under the Designs Act, 2000. 
• Section 15 (2) provides that for designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act but which remain unregistered, copyright protection ceases once any article incorporating that design has been reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process by either the copyright owner or any licensed person.