Decoding Section 15(2): A Judicial Clarification on Overlapping of IP Rights
The Honourable Supreme Court of India passed an interesting judgement on 15th April 2025, concerning the interplay between copyright law and design law. The judgment was delivered in the case of Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd and others.
Inox India Limited, the Respondents herein, filed a suit before the Commercial Court of Vadodara, against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India Private Limited and others, the Appellants herein, alleging copyright infringement of
- the drawings of LNG semi-trailers developed by Inox (Proprietary Engineering Drawings); and
- the details, processes, descriptions, and narrations written by Inox employees in creating the Proprietary Engineering Drawings (Literary Works).
The Respondents sought relief in the form of injunctions, destruction of alleged infringing materials, and damages worth 2 crores. This was based on their claim that the drawings containing the design of the tanker and other internal parts of semi-trailers they developed were protected as “artistic work” under the Copyright Law. The Appellants, in response, countered by seeking the rejection of the suit on the grounds that it was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act,1957. Their main contention was that the drawings for which Inox has claimed copyright protection technically fall under the definition of a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, and the articles bearing the designs were reproduced more than 50 times. This would bring them within the scope of of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act provides that Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the 1*** 2[Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)] but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his licence, by any other person. This section prevents someone from claiming copyright protection for designs that are actually mass-produced through an industrial process.
In the present case, the Commercial Court of Vadodara, where the suit was initially filed, rejected the Respondent’s suit on the grounds of Section 15(2) of the Act. The High Court of Gujarat reinstated the suit and ordered a fresh trial, against which the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
The Appellants submitted that the “Proprietary Engineering Drawings” used for mass producing trailers and semi-trailers are ‘designs’ and since the Respondents did not file their work under the Designs Act, the copyright also ceases to exist. Moreover, they also contested the Respondent’s claim of generating revenue amounting to Rs. 122 crores, as the same will imply the industrial use of the cryogenic semi-trailers. The Respondents countered that the drawings in question contain the internal components of a cryogenic container that are not visually appealing and thus cannot be considered as a ‘design’. They also raised claims regarding theft of confidential information and infringement of literary work.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the two main legal issues in the present matter-
- What are the parameters for determining whether an artistic work falls within the limitation set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, classifying it as a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act?
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC?
The Court focused on distinguishing between a ‘design’ as defined by the Designs Act and an ‘artistic work’ according to the Copyright Act. The Court deemed it necessary to review the existing intellectual property statutory framework and assess the different criteria and tests used in various jurisdictions, and then outline the factors necessary to determine whether an article qualifies as a design or an artistic work. The Court drew influence from tests done in other jurisdictions, such as the ‘conceptual separability’ standard established by the US Courts, where they test whether artistic elements can be separated from functional ones, the ‘visual appeal’ test applied by the UK Courts, etc. The Supreme Court also reviewed the various approaches adopted by the Courts in India to provide clarity on the interplay between copyright and design protection.
The Court observed that there is confusion in classifying a work as a copyright or a design, as the lines are blurred. They explained this with the help of a Venn diagram, as given below.
To clear the confusion, the Supreme Court established a structured “two-pronged approach” to essentially resolve the challenge caused by Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act.
- whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the Copyright Act, or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act;
- if such a work does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of ‘functional utility’ will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant purpose, and then ascertain whether it would qualify for design protection under the Design Act.
In essence, step one will ascertain if the article qualifies as an original artistic work under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act or as a “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. Step 2 will assess if it is solely functional or aesthetically pleasing in order to decide whether it may be protected as a design.
Further, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court was correct in rejecting the Appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reaffirmed that the said provision cannot be used as a means to prejudge factual disputes in complex IP matters. Even though the Supreme Court did not decide regarding the ‘design eligibility’ of the Respondent’s drawings or whether the work in question is copyright protected or not, the analysis done by the Court brings clarity to the complexities arising from Section 15(2) of the Act.
As rightly pointed out by the Court, the question of determination of whether the proprietary drawing in the subject case, which are admittedly “original artistic works” continue to enjoy copyright or whether they do not, due to the limitation in Section 15(2) is a mixed question of law and fact. The same cannot be answered while deciding an application for rejection of plaint, or at a preliminary stage. This needs a trial to ascertain the true nature of the drawings based on the two-pronged test formulated by the Court.
Case Reference- Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others (2025) INSC 483 (SC)
By Shwetha S Menon
