A label on a package is a trademark and an artistic work — but it is not a “design.” The Delhi High Court used that distinction to save a company’s copyrights from Section 15(2), the rule that kills copyright in a design industrially applied more than 50 times.
The overlap it clarified
In Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt Ltd v. Sudhir Bhatia (judgment dated 9 November 2015), the Delhi High Court untangled the overlapping provisions of the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act and Designs Act — holding that labels on packaging are excluded from the definition of “design.”
The facts
Midas Hygiene pioneered insecticide/pesticide chalks sold from around 1989 under “Krazy Lines” and “Laxman Rekha,” registering the trademarks in 1991 and obtaining copyright in the packaging. A former employee (1985–1992) began making identical chalks under the same marks; after litigation, the Supreme Court (2004) restrained him.
He then filed a rectification petition before the Copyright Board to cancel Midas’s copyrights, arguing they fell under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Board cancelled them (April 2011) — and that cancellation was the subject of this appeal.
Section 15(2)
Section 15(2): copyright in a design capable of registration under the Designs Act, but not so registered, ceases once the article to which the design is applied is produced more than fifty times by an industrial process.
Midas argued its artistic work used as a label was incapable of design registration — so Section 15(2) never applied, and the copyright didn’t cease.
The court’s reasoning
The Delhi High Court distinguished the three rights cleanly:
“Copyright protection is to the original expression of an idea. Trademarks protect the distinctiveness of a mark… ‘badges of origin’… Design rights… protect novelty of the design elements (shape, presentation, etc.) of an article: it is significantly based on the visual appeal of the product.”
Crucially, the definition of “design” under Section 2(a) of the Designs Act excludes both “artistic works” (as defined in the Copyright Act) and “labels” used as trademarks. Midas’s label was both a trademark (a badge of origin) and a copyright work (colours, stylised red lettering, a cockroach image) — so it’s clearly outside the design definition.
Therefore the artistic work was not capable of design registration, Section 15(2) didn’t apply, and the Copyright Board’s cancellation was set aside.
The takeaways
- A label is a trademark and an artistic work — not a design. It’s excluded from the Designs Act definition.
- Section 15(2)‘s 50-article rule doesn’t reach labels — copyright in them doesn’t lapse on industrial production.
- The three rights protect different things — expression (copyright), origin (trademark), visual novelty of an article (design).
- Welcome clarity — genuine traders keep copyright in their labels without a design registration.
Frequently asked questions
Is a package label a “design” under the Designs Act? No — Section 2(a) of the Designs Act excludes both artistic works and labels used as trademarks, so a label is not a design.
Does Section 15(2) extinguish copyright in a label? No — because a label isn’t capable of design registration, Section 15(2)‘s 50-article rule doesn’t apply, and copyright in the label survives.
How did the court distinguish copyright, trademark and design? Copyright protects original expression, trademarks protect origin (badges of origin), and design protects the visual novelty of an article’s shape/presentation.
What was the outcome of Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia? The Delhi High Court set aside the Copyright Board’s cancellation, holding the label’s artistic work wasn’t capable of design registration and so wasn’t hit by Section 15(2).
Legislation referred to
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- The Designs Act, 2000