Introduction / Overview
On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court has given the order to the Vadodara Commercial Court to reconsider a copyright infringement issue by providing a two-pronged approach in order to determine whether a design is protected under the Design Protection Act or not. The Supreme Court also ordered the Commercial Court to consider the application by Inox for interim injunction.
So let us deep dive into this case.
Background of the Case
- The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a suit against Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. and LNG Express (P) Ltd. regarding their copyright infringement related to:
- Proprietary Engineering Designs (Cryogenic Storage Tanks)
- Literary works used to create drawings (description of manufacturing process)
- Inox sued against Cryogas and LNG Express and sought various reliefs like:
- Declaration of infringement
- Permanent injunction
- Destruction of infringing materials
- Damages of Rs. 2 crores
In response to the suit, LNG Express filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the suit where it argued that ‘Drawings’ are qualified as designs under the Designs Act, 2000. The Commercial Court accepted the application and rejected the plaint and denied giving interim injunction.
Inox appealed to Gujarat High Court and the court set aside the decision given by the Commercial Court on 13 March 2024. It gave order to the Commercial Court to reconsider the issue. However, when Inox filed further suit on 3 May 2024, the Commercial Court once again rejected the plaint.
In response, Inox filed another appeal to the Gujarat High Court and the court again set aside the decision of the Commercial Court on the ground that the Commercial Court has wrongfully assumed that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings were a ‘Design’ under Section 2(d) of The Designs Act and thus cannot be protected under Copyright Act, 1957. The application filed by LNG Express under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was also rejected.
Cryogas filed an appeal against the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the Supreme Court.
Looking into relevant section and Act- Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act,1957 and the Designs Act,2000
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act says that if a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and the creator has not registered it and it has been produced more than 50 times, then it loses protection under Copyright. Thus, if a creator wants to protect his designs, he must register his design under the Designs Act, 2000 and it gets protection for 15 years. If it is registered, then it also gets protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The main objective of the Designs Act, 2000 is to give protection to the proprietor who creates new or original designs to be manufactured by industrial means. Thus, if a creator invents a design through industrial means, then it is protected under this Act.
Analysis of the Case: Addressing the Dispute Between Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000
In this particular case, Inox alleged that Cryogas had manufactured and designed the internal parts of cryogenic storage tanks and distribution systems which are mounted on trailers and semi-trailers similar to that of Inox and thus violated their intellectual property rights.
When it was challenged in the Supreme Court, it was analysed by the Court that despite the clear language used in the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000, there exists a small point of intersection between ‘designs’ and ‘artistic work’ that are protected under the Designs Act and Copyright Act respectively.
The Court also took into consideration Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 which clearly says that ‘Copyright’ shall not subsist in a ‘Design’ protected under the Designs Act. If a design has been registered under the Designs Act, 2000, it ceases to get protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
According to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, if a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 but has not been registered and if it has been reproduced more than 50 times through an industrial process, either by the owner or by a licensee, then it ceases to get protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Apex Court also clarified that all the artistic work protected under Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act includes reproduction in any material form including depiction in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and vice versa. If such an act is produced through an industrial process that appeals to the eyes, then the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to that product would be considered under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000.
The Supreme Court Provided a Two-Pronged Approach to Determine Whether a Design Can Be Protected Under the Designs Act:
- Artistic Work Assessment – Firstly, assessing whether the artistic work is protected under the Copyright Act or it is a design derived from the original work which is industrially applied and protected under Section 15(2) of the Act.
- Functional Utility – To determine what is the dominant function of the work or its dominant purpose and whether it is capable of being registered under the Designs Act if the work is qualified to be protected under the Copyright Act.
By adopting a two-pronged approach, the Apex Court tried to simplify the complexities of the Copyright Act. It also suggested that while applying the proposed test, the courts must take into consideration the case-specific inquiry and dive deeply into the complexities of the case by applying proper statutory provisions and conducting in-depth research to reach a conclusion so that the IP laws can be properly implemented.
The Supreme Court concurred with the decision of the High Court in reconsidering the issue because it was not inquired into properly by the Commercial Court and triable issues were involved.
The Court further directed the Commercial Court to reconsider the issue afresh and to apply the two-pronged approach to determine the true nature of the Proprietary Engineering Designs to avoid unnecessary complexities and to solve the core issue.
Conclusion
We can conclude by saying this was a very important judgement given by the Supreme Court of India to deal with the complexities arising out of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It gave the two-pronged test to be applied to reach a conclusion.
Finally, this judgement holds importance not only because it aimed to solve the disputes of the Designs Act and Copyright Act but is also important because it upheld that a case needs to be researched carefully before jumping to a conclusion which may hamper the interest of the parties and deny them justice.
References:
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/17/supreme-court-section-15-2-copyright-act-two-pronged-approach-designs-act/
- https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=18798
- https://www.juryscan.in/cryogas-equipment-pvt-ltd-vs-inox-india-ltd-and-ors/
- https://keralalaw.in/cryogas-equipment-pvt-ltd-v-inox-india-ltd/
