Shivaji Rathore 02-01-2026
In a significant ruling aimed at resolving long-standing ambiguity in intellectual property law, the Supreme Court of India on April 15 clarified the scope and application of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly concerning the overlap between copyright and design protection. The judgment delineates when copyright in an artistic work ceases and how courts must determine whether such a work is entitled to protection under the Designs Act, 2000. Understanding Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act
Section 15(2) specifically addresses artistic works that are capable of being registered as designs. The provision states that copyright protection in such works will cease if: The design is capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000; The design remains unregistered; and The design is reproduced industrially more than 50 times. Clarifying this position, the Court held that an artistic work does not automatically lose copyright protection merely because it has been used in industrial production. The cessation of copyright occurs only when all statutory conditions under Section 15(2) are cumulatively satisfied. No Automatic Migration From Copyright to Design Protection The Court further clarified that dismissal of a copyright claim under Section 15(2) does not automatically confer protection under the Designs Act. Whether a work qualifies as a “design” must be independently assessed under the Designs Act framework. To resolve the interpretational conundrum, the Court laid down a two-pronged legal test to determine the nature of protection applicable to a work. The Two-Pronged Test Laid Down by the Supreme Court The Court held that the following considerations must guide adjudication:
Nature of the Work:- Whether the work is purely an “artistic work” protected under the Copyright Act, or a “design” derived from such artistic work and subjected to an industrial process within the meaning of Section 15(2).
Test of Functional Utility:- If the work fails to qualify for copyright protection, courts must examine its dominant purpose. If the work’s primary characteristic is functional utility, it would not qualify for protection under the Designs Act.
Protection under the Designs Act requires aesthetic appeal as the dominant element.
In essence, aesthetic value is sine qua non for design protection, whereas works driven primarily by functionality fall outside its ambit.
Background of the Case:- The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal arising from a 2018 commercial suit filed by Inox India Limited. Inox alleged that Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India had infringed its copyright in proprietary engineering drawings and literary works relating to cryogenic semi-trailers used for transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG). While Inox asserted that the drawings constituted original “artistic works”, the appellants contended that they were unregistered “designs” under the Designs Act and, having been industrially reproduced more than 50 times, were disentitled to copyright protection under Section 15(2).
Proceedings Before the Commercial Court and High Court:- The Commercial Court dismissed Inox’s suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, accepting Cryogas’s contention that the drawings fell exclusively within the domain of the Designs Act. However, the Gujarat High Court reversed the decision, restoring the suit and holding that the issues involved required a full-fledged trial.
Aggrieved by this reversal, Cryogas approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings and Observations:-
Upholding the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Commercial Court’s approach of dismissing the suit solely on the assumption that industrial reproduction beyond 50 instances extinguished copyright.
The Court categorically held:
“The inquiry cannot be concluded merely by assuming that what does not qualify as an ‘artistic work’ would automatically receive protection under the Designs Act.”
It noted that the drawings pertained to internal components of cryogenic trailers, which lacked visible aesthetic appeal. Crucially, the Commercial Court had failed to determine:- whether the drawings were reproduced more than 50 times; and whether they were aesthetic or purely functional in nature.
The Court emphasised that determining whether a proprietary engineering drawing constitutes a “design” involves a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the preliminary stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Direction for Trial and Final Outcome:- Concurring with the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the matter warranted a full trial due to the existence of triable issues. The Court observed that Inox had been wrongly non-suited due to misapplication of legal principles and an erroneous conflation of “artistic work” and “design”.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the Commercial Court was directed to:- Reconsider the matter afresh; Conduct a full trial by adopting an Occam’s Razor approach to determine the true nature of the proprietary engineering drawings; and
Independently examine claims relating to infringement of literary works, confidential information, and know-how.
Case Details
Case Title: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors.
