Designs and Copyright: Decoding the Legal Interplay through Judicial Lens

1. Introduction

In the evolving landscape of intellectual property (IP), the boundaries between different forms of protection often overlap—most notably between copyright and design law. While both aim to safeguard creativity, their scope, purpose, and legal implications differ. As industries increasingly blend artistic design with utilitarian function—especially in fields like product engineering, fashion, and digital interfaces—the interplay between these IP regimes becomes more complex.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025)offers an important clarification on how Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 interacts with the Designs Act, 2000, providing a robust legal framework for understanding this interface.

Understanding the Legal Framework

Copyright Law
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright subsists in “original” works such as literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works. Artistic works include drawings, diagrams, maps, paintings, and even abstract creations. Once created, copyright protection is automatic and grants the author exclusive rights, including reproduction, adaptation, and distribution.

Design Law
The Designs Act, 2000 protects the visual appearance of articles—specifically the shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation that can be judged solely by the eye. Design protection is registration-based, and applies primarily to products manufactured through an industrial process, ensuring their market distinctiveness.

The Overlap and the Legal Dilemma

The interface becomes tricky when an artistic work, protected under copyright, is used in commercial or industrial settings—for instance, as part of a product’s design. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act limits copyright protection for such artistic works if they are capable of being registered under the Designs Act and are reproduced more than fifty times industrially.

But how does one determine whether something is a “design” or merely an “artistic work”? This question lies at the heart of recent litigation.

The Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025) Case: A Judicial Milestone

Background
In Inox India Ltd. v. Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Inox accused Cryogas, LNG Express, and others of infringing two types of copyright:

• • Proprietary Engineering Drawings (artistic works).

• • Literary Works relating to processes and technical narration.

The dispute centered around internal components of cryogenic tanks used in LNG transport. Inox sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, while LNG Express sought rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, claiming that the drawings were designs capable of registration, hence copyright had ceased under Section 15(2).

The Commercial Court accepted this argument and dismissed the suit. The Gujarat High Court reversed the decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court clarified the position through a nuanced legal analysis.

Key Legal Questions Before the Court

• • Do Proprietary Engineering Drawings qualify as “artistic works” or “designs” under Indian IP laws?

• • Is visual appeal a mandatory element for design registration?

• • Can such drawings still enjoy copyright protection despite industrial use?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

A. Artistic Work vs. Design
The Court emphasized that while all designs may originate from artistic works, not all artistic works qualify as designs. An artistic work loses copyright only when:

• It is capable of registration under the Designs Act; and
• It is reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process.

Thus, copyright doesn’t automatically vanish just because a drawing is applied industrially.

B. Visual Appeal is Key
For a design to be registrable under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act:

• The article must have visual appeal.
• The design must not be a mere mechanical device.

C. Literary Works and Confidential Information
The Court also drew a clear distinction between artistic drawings and literary work (technical descriptions and processes), which are protected independently under copyright. Further, the misappropriation of confidential information, especially in commercial settings, is a distinct cause of action under common law principles, and must not be conflated with design law or copyright.

D. The Court’s Two-Pronged Test
The Supreme Court proposed a structured approach to resolve future overlaps:

• Step One – Is the work a purely artistic work or a design derived from it, reproduced by industrial means?
• Step Two – If it is a design, is its dominant characteristic visual appeal or functional utility?

If the functional utility dominates, it cannot be a design under the Designs Act, regardless of industrial use. This echoes the “conceptual separability” test applied in U.S. jurisprudence, where the artistic features must be separable from the functional ones.

Judicial Lens on the Overlap: From Microfibres to Cryogas

Indian courts have long struggled with the tension between copyright and design law—particularly in determining whether a work retains its copyright protection when adapted for industrial production. This challenge was first significantly addressed in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2006)¹, where the Delhi High Court held that fabric patterns used industrially fall under the purview of the Designs Act, not copyright law. The Court emphasized that commercially exploited patterns lose their claim to long-term copyright protection due to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

This principle was further refined by the Division Bench in Microfibres (2009)², which clarified that once an artistic work is applied industrially and crosses the 50-copy threshold, copyright ceases to subsist. This harmonization serves legislative intent—reserving copyright for pure artistic works while limiting monopolies on design to the 15-year term under the Designs Act.

In Dart Industries Inc. v. Techno Plast (2007)³, involving Tupperware-style containers, the Delhi High Court reiterated this view. Once a design is industrially applied, design law takes precedence, and copyright is barred. The Court also invoked the British precedent Warner Bros. v. Roadrunner, reinforcing the idea that industrial intent at creation negates future copyright claims.

The decision in Mattel Inc. v. Jayant Agarwalla (2008)⁴ followed suit. Despite Mattel’s claim over the SCRABBLE board design as an “artistic work,” the court denied protection, holding that mass production of 3D objects brought the work within the Designs Act’s scope.

This doctrine has been upheld across contexts, including in Pranda Jewelry v. Aarya (2015)⁵ and Fun World v. Nimil KK (2020)⁶, where jewelry and amusement park designs respectively were denied copyright after exceeding industrial application thresholds.

Conclusion: Strategic Takeaways for Creators and Businesses

The Inox case is a landmark in Indian IP jurisprudence, bridging the often-confusing gap between copyright and design law. As courts sharpen their understanding of “visual appeal,” “industrial application,” and “functional utility,” it is essential for businesses to:

• • Assess the visual characteristics of their work before relying on design protection.

• • Register designs where applicable, especially if the product will be mass-produced.

• • Protect literary and artistic content under copyright, particularly if not visually distinctive.

• • Guard confidential information through contracts and trade secret practices.

By aligning legal strategy with product utility and design, creators can ensure robust and enforceable IP protection in today’s innovation-driven economy.

Read Judgement: Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025)

References:

1. 1. 2006 SCC OnLine Del 60.

1. 1. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647

1. 1. 2007 SCC OnLine Del 892

1. 1. 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1059

1. 1. 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 958

1. 1. 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 219

 

Author Name

By Rishita Pandey