Introduction
Intellectual property rights (IPR) have transformed the way people perceive creative intellectual work. IPR is an amalgamation of various distinct rights, which sometimes overlap concerning the same subject matter, which could cast questions about the certainty of such rights. This overlap is often encountered in areas where both copyright law and design law are applicable. Indian legislators have enacted separate comprehensive statutes, i.e., the Designs Act, 2000 (“the Designs Act”) and the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Copyright Act”), to address copyrights and industrial designs. However, due to inherent concurrency in fields such as applied arts, ambiguities remain regarding the demarcation of protection under IPR. Resolving these ambiguities requires clear, harmonious co-existence and well-defined boundaries. A recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.[1] clarified the long-standing position on overlapping protection under the Copyright Law and Design Law.
Statutory scheme vis-à-vis Dual Protection
The Copyright Act, 1957, clearly defines eligibility, registration, transfer of copyright, rights of the copyright owner, and other miscellaneous provisions governing the law of copyright in India. Section 13 of the Act provides that original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works; cinematographic films; and sound recordings are works in which copyright could subsist in India. Section 15 of the Copyright Act clarifies that a copyright shall not subsist in a design registered under the Designs Act 2000. Clause (2) of the same section provides that a copyright in the case of non-registration of a registrable design ceases upon reproduction of an article containing the design more than fifty times by an industrial process by the copyright owner or with his consent. The Designs Act 2000, protects the aesthetic aspects of a design (shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament applied to an article) in any form, which are appealing to the eye. The definition of ‘design’ under Section 2(d) does not include any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act. These provisions attempt to ensure some kind of duality of protection under the copyright law and the design law.
Judicial Interpretations on clarification of position
In the case of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar and Co.,[2] the Delhi High Court was concerned with the issue of whether designs once industrially applied and reproduced multiple times could be protected under copyright law. The Division Bench held that artistic works that are industrially applied and reproduced more than 50 times (statutory limit) lose their copyright protection under the Copyright Act. The court used the analogy of a painting in which copyright subsists. If it is used to derive a design that qualifies as a ‘design’ under the Design Act and is industrially applied, then the design would lose its copyright protection, but the original painting will retain such protection. If a design is registrable in nature and not registered under the Designs Act, then it continues to gain copyright protection unless it has been applied to an article in excess of the statutory limit prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Court elaborated that the object behind the provision prohibiting dual protection was to ensure longer protection for works purely artistic in nature against works that were made for commercial purposes.
In Bulgari S.P.A vs Prerna Rajpal Trading as The Amaris Flagship,[3] the Delhi High Court was concerned with the copyright protection of the ‘Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace’ and its applied designs. The Court, acting on the similarity of structure and visual appearance between the designs, granted an injunction against Amaris for infringing on Bulgari’s rights. The court agreed with the assertions of Bulgari regarding reproduction of the design less than 50 times, as it was a handcrafted item, thus enjoying the protection under the Copyright Act.
The main seminal moment in clarification on dual protection came in 2025 through the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.[4] In 2018, Inox India Limited instituted a suit against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India Private Limited concerning the copyright infringement of literary works used to create its proprietary engineering drawings. These drawings were used in the design of cryogenic storage tanks and other distribution systems. While Inox Ltd. argued that drawings and accompanying technical literature were encompassed in the expression ‘artistic work’ under the Copyright Act, Cryogas Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express Pvt. Ltd contended that such engineering drawings were not protected by copyright as they were falling within the limitation prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Commercial Court initially upheld LNG Express’ application and rejected the plaint and the interim injunction filed by Inox Ltd. Inox appealed to the High Court, which set aside the decision of the Commercial Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. However, the Commercial Court again rejected the plaint, which was once again set aside by the High Court upon improper assessment of engineering drawings as design. This prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court whereby the court upheld the decision of the High Court and instructed the Commercial Court to pronounce its decision on the pending application for an interim injunction filed by Inox within two months. The main issue before the court was the determination of criteria for an article or work to be subject to limitations set out under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
The Court comprehensively interpreted the current Intellectual Property framework, and observed that a common intersection between distinct provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Design Act, 2000 may occur in case of limited things which are designs as well as capable of being ‘artistic works’ seeking copyright protection. Emphasis was also given to statutory provisions such as Section 15(1), (2) of the Copyright Act. While some designs are provided copyright protection, others are denied the same in case of industrial application. The Court took a comprehensive overlook of the approach of courts in India, the United States of America (USA) and other prevalent global principles and practices governing the interplay between copyright and design protection. The Court held that the phrase “artistic work” under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act is a wider term encompassing abstract creations in certain forms, regardless of visual appeal. The creator of the work is entitled to statutory protection under Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act, which even includes the right of reproduction of the work in any material form. However, the Court elucidated that in case of reproduction through an industrial process, either manual, mechanical, or chemical, which leads to a finished product that appeals to the eye, then the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to that product could be registered as a design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. It was observed that bare intention to produce an original artistic work cannot be determining factor of its eligibility as an artistic work or a design.
The commercial application of an artistic work is to be interpreted keeping in mind the restrictions set out under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. In such cases of interplay, protection for artistic work even after reproduction occurs only if it is registered under the Designs Act. The Court clarified that an original artistic work in which a copyright subsists is not precluded from protection due to the reproduction of a design used in the industrial application. While the expression ‘artistic work’ comprises varied creations, the scope of a ‘design’ is limited and more specific. The Court noted that the legislative intent is to make a harmonious interpretation of both statutes. The Court cautioned against the approach of the Commercial Court in making an inquiry based on assumptions that a work not constituting an artistic work under the Copyright Act would automatically receive protection under the Designs Act. Although design protection is for a shorter duration than a copyright, it is not provided by default, as it also requires specific statutory requirements.
The court emphasised the test of functional utility applied in Indian, US and courts in other jurisdictions to assess its protection under the Designs Act. In a bid to resolve the complexities in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, the court laid down a two-step approach to evaluate the protection of such work as a design. Firstly, assessment has to be carried out to true nature of the work. It has to be examined whether it is a pure artistic work or a design obtained from an artistic work that has been industrially applied. Secondly, in case of ineligibility of the work as an artistic work, a functional test has to be applied to determine its dominant purpose. Such a test has to be applied by the courts after making case-specific inquiries in line with statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The primary aim is to ensure that the rights granted under either of the Copyright or Designs Acts serve their intended legislative purpose without any kind of encroachment over the. The Court held that a question of determining the true nature of the Proprietary Engineering Drawings is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated by the Commercial Court at a preliminary stage. Directions were given to the Commercial Court to adopt the Occam’s Razor approach (simple determination of the core problem only, avoiding unnecessary complexity) to ascertain the true nature of the engineering drawings.
Conclusion
Intellectual Property Rights are a valuable set of property rights aimed at fostering creativity and innovation. The Copyright Act and Designs Act are comprehensive statutes governing the protection of two separate, sometimes overlapping rights. The statutory position in this context has been elucidated particularly in Section 15 of the Copyright Act, which takes away the copyright of an article when it is industrially applied, exceeding the threshold limit of 50 reproductions. Various judicial precedents have substantially strengthened the statutory intent of safeguarding purely artistic works devoid of any commercial motives. The judgment in the Inox Ltd. Case[5] clarified the position of the duality of protection, which has made the position of the intellectual law certain in this regard. The judicial insight and legislative intent have called for harmonious construction of overlapping provisions in a way to secure their peaceful co-existence.
[1] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780
[2] (2006) (32) PTC 157 (Del.)
[3] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3339
[4] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780
[5] Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780
Authored By: Mr. Sumit Kumar – Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply