The overlap between copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 and design protection under the Designs Act, 2000 has long been one of the most debated issues in Indian intellectual property law. While copyright protects original artistic works, industrial designs are intended to be protected under the Designs Act. Determining when an artistic work loses copyright protection after being commercially exploited has remained uncertain because of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. has now provided significant clarity by laying down a structured framework for resolving this overlap, thereby clarifying the parameters essential for a work to fall within the limitation set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, thus to classify it as a design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act.

Section 15(2) provides that copyright in any design capable of registration under the Designs Act ceases once the design has been reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process, unless it has been registered under the Designs Act.

Section 2(d) defines a “design” as the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article by an industrial process, which appeal solely to the eye. However, artistic works protected under the Copyright Act are expressly excluded from this definition unless they acquire the characteristics of a registrable industrial design.

The dispute arose when Inox India Limited (hereinafter “Inox”) filed a suit for copyright infringement in respect of artistic works before the Commercial Court against Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express India Pvt Ltd (hereinafter Respondents), alleging that they had copied Inox’s proprietary engineering drawings as well as the process written by Inox employees in creating those drawings.

The Respondents contended that the suit was not maintainable under the Copyright Act, arguing that the drawings come within the definition of a design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. They further contended that Inox does not have copyright over the drawings as they have failed to register it under the Designs Act, and that copyright protection cannot be claimed in respect of a design capable of registration, if it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process as given under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Inox contended that the proprietary engineering drawings fall within the definition of artistic work under the Copyright Act.

The Commercial Court rejected the suit, holding that it is not maintainable. Aggrieved by this, Inox filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat, which set aside the Commercial Court’s order. Aggrieved by this, the Respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, while undertaking a comparative analysis of Indian, United States, and international jurisprudence, observed that the legislative intent is to harmonize both statutes. The Supreme Court introduced a two-pronged test to resolve the conundrum arising from Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act and to determine whether a work qualifies for protection under the Designs Act.

As per this test, the Court must first identify whether the work in question is purely an artistic work, under the Copyright Act, or a design derived from such original artistic work, which is subjected to an industrial process as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Secondly, if such a work does not fall within the copyright protection, then the court needs to apply the test of “functional utility” to determine its dominant purpose and to determine whether it would fall within the design protection as enumerated in the Designs Act.

The court emphasised that a case-specific inquiry must be made, which needs to be guided by statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative jurisprudence. Through this judgment, the court has resolved a long-standing legal issue concerning the overlap between copyright and design protection in India. The judgment represents a significant development in Indian intellectual property jurisprudence. By introducing a structured two-pronged test, the Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between artistic works and industrial designs while preserving the legislative balance between the Copyright Act and the Designs Act. The decision is likely to influence future disputes involving engineering drawings, product designs, architectural plans, and other commercially exploited artistic works by providing a more predictable framework for determining the appropriate form of intellectual property protection.

Written by Meghana SS