Supreme Court Clarifies Copyright vs Design Law; Says “Artistic Work Does Not Lose Protection Merely Due to Industrial Use”

Summary of the Judgment

• Case Name: Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd v. Inox India Ltd and LNG Express India Pvt Ltd v. Inox India Ltd

• Date of Judgment: 15 April 2025

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Bench: Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant

• Advocates: Mr. Shyam Divan (for Appellants), Mr. Chander M. Lall and Mr. J. Sai Deepak (for Respondents)

• Key Statutes & Provisions:

  • Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 14, 15(1), 15(2)

  • Designs Act, 2000: Section 2(d)

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11

• Cited Judgements:

  • Microfibres Inc v. Girdhar (2006 SCC OnLine Del 60; 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647)

  • Dart Industries v. Techno Plast

  • Mattel Inc v. Jayant Agarwalla

  • Bharat Glass Tube Ltd v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd

  • Mazer v. Stein (US Supreme Court)

  • Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc (US Supreme Court)

Introduction

In a landmark ruling delivered on 15 April 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd v. Inox India Ltd delved deep into the complex interplay between copyright protection and design registration under Indian intellectual property law. At the core of this commercial dispute was the applicability of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to industrial drawings used in manufacturing LNG semi-trailers.

The judgement, authored by Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant, offers pivotal clarity for IP law practitioners, engineering firms, and legal advisors navigating the thin line between artistic and industrial expressions.

"The original artistic work, which initially enjoys copyright protection, does not lose the same merely because a ‘design’ derived from it has been industrially applied to create a product."

Background: Copyright vs. Design Rights in Engineering Drawings

Inox India Ltd accused Cryogas and LNG Express of infringing its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary content used in designing cryogenic semi-trailers. The defence argued that these drawings, being applied industrially, lost their copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and should have been protected, if at all, under the Designs Act.

The Commercial Court initially accepted this defence and rejected Inox's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, the Gujarat High Court reversed this order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues and Analysis

1. What constitutes a 'design' under Indian law?

The judgment underscores the distinction between "artistic works" under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and "designs" under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. While both may overlap, the Court emphasised that intent, visual appeal, and industrial application play a decisive role.

"If such reproduction is done by employing an industrial process... resulting in a finished article that may appeal to the eye, then it constitutes a 'design' under the Designs Act."

2. Applicability of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act

The Court reiterated that any design capable of being registered under the Designs Act but not so registered would lose its copyright protection once reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process.

However, Justice Surya Kant observed that whether such drawings in this case meet the threshold of a "design" is a mixed question of fact and law—unsuitable for summary dismissal under Order VII Rule 11.

3. Functional Utility Test and Conceptual Separability

Drawing parallels with US and UK jurisprudence, the Court recognised the relevance of the "functional utility" test. If a work’s utility is inseparable from its aesthetic features, then copyright protection is unlikely.

"We have formulated a two-pronged approach: Is it a derived design subjected to industrial application? If so, is it primarily functional or aesthetic in nature?"

Clarifying the Dual Protection Conundrum

In its analysis, the Court noted:

"It must be kept in mind that the overarching objective is to ensure that rights granted under either regime serve their intended purpose without unduly encroaching upon the domain of the other."

The Court explained that an original artistic work may enjoy protection under the Copyright Act, but if that work is industrially applied and reproduced more than fifty times, it transitions into the domain of the Designs Act—provided the features meet the criteria under Section 2(d).

"The lines perhaps seem blurred owing to the inherent overlap between copyrightable artistic works and designs... this perplexity is further augmented on account of there being an express interdiction on designs from seeking any long-term copyright protection."

This reinforces the legislative intent behind Section 15(2), which is to prevent creators from enjoying perpetual monopoly over designs by exploiting copyright law instead of registering them appropriately under the Designs Act.

International Context and Comparative Jurisprudence

The Court cited key global precedents including Mazer v. Stein and Star Athletica from the US, and the UK House of Lords' guidance in Amp v. Utilux, to reinforce Indian courts’ evolving understanding of design-copyright overlap. It also referred to TRIPS and Berne Convention principles.

This comparative analysis strengthens the domestic legal framework by aligning it with international best practices.

Impact on Litigation Strategy

The ruling is significant for litigation strategy in IP disputes. Summary rejections of suits invoking copyright in industrial works must be carefully scrutinised. If ambiguity exists about the applicability of Section 15(2), courts must lean toward permitting evidence and a full trial.

For corporate counsel and IP litigators, the takeaway is clear: distinguish and plead clearly whether your client’s work is a pure artistic creation or a commercially deployed design. Both routes offer protection—but not simultaneously or interchangeably.

Conclusion: A Clarifying Judgment for India’s IP Ecosystem

This decision provides much-needed clarity on an area previously riddled with interpretive inconsistencies. It affirms the High Court’s rejection of the Commercial Court’s hasty dismissal, and more importantly, lays down a pragmatic and jurisprudentially sound framework for deciding such matters in the future.

Justice Surya Kant’s articulation marks a new era for industrial design law in India:

"Courts must ensure that rights granted under either regime serve their intended purpose without unduly encroaching upon the domain of the other."