Let’s consider a startup working on prototypes that are both aesthetically crafted and functionally driven, with innovators eager to protect their creations. While copyright is often the go-to protection for creative works, a dilemma arises under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. This provision withdraws copyright from certain works once they are commercially reproduced, unless protected under the Designs Act.
In Cryogas v. Inox, the Supreme Court attempts to draw a fine line between artistic and industrial creations, balancing creative intent with commercial application, and clarifying the legislative boundaries of IP protection.
Copyright Infringement:
In Cryogas v. Inox centred around the alleged infringement of intellectual property rights concerning the internal design components of cryogenic storage tanks and distribution systems mounted on trailers and semi-trailers used for transporting industrial gases, including liquefied natural gas (LNG). Inox claimed that Cryogas and LNG Express had unlawfully copied two categories of its copyrighted material: first, the technical drawings used to develop LNG semi-trailers, referred to as Proprietary Engineering Drawings; and second, the accompanying written content such as processes, descriptions, and narrative explanations developed by its employees, classified as Literary Works.
Design or Copyright?
In response, LNG Express filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the commercial court seeking outright rejection of the suit as there is no cause of action. Their primary argument was that Inox's technical drawings fell under the definition of a “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, and thus could not be protected under the Copyright Act. They contended that once any work is capable of registration as a design and has been reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process, copyright protection ceases to exist under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, unless registered under the Designs Act, also upheld in Dart Industries Inc v. Techno Plast.
An Attempt to Set Boundaries:
Inox’s claim was first rejected by the Commercial Court, upheld by the High Court on appeal, and later contested again. Ultimately, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) brought the case before the Supreme Court. Apart from resolving the procedural issue, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to clarify when a work qualifies as a “design” under the Designs Act and loses copyright protection because of a possible overlap. The Court emphasized that while artistic works merit long-term protection, industrial designs, being commercially exploitative, are given shorter and stricter protection. This interpretation aligns with prior Indian rulings as mentioned in Microfibres Inc v. Girdhar.
Court’s Reasoning:
The purpose of the Designs Act was clarified in Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., where the court stated that the Act is intended to offer protection to new and original designs that have not been previously published or registered for ten years for commercial use. The Act’s objective of balancing intellectual property rights with industrial innovation.
The concept of “functional utility” was first articulated in the UK’s Amp v. Utilux, which held that designs must offer visual appeal beyond mere functionality. Indian courts have adopted this standard in Smithkline Beecham, Mohan Lal, Whirlpool, and Tractors and Farm Equipment, holding that purely functional features are not protectable designs. Photoquip v. Delhi Photo Store introduced a conjunctive approach, assessing the design and article together and excluding functional parts from protection.
Scenario across borders:
Internationally, the U.S. Supreme Court in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands established the “conceptual separability” test: a design feature is protectable if it can be perceived as a separate work of art. Under public international law, the Paris Convention sets broad standards for design protection, while TRIPS offers clearer guidance, allowing exclusion of purely functional designs and mandating a minimum of ten years’ protection. India’s Designs Act reflects these norms, reinforcing the distinction between artistic and functional design protection.
The two-pronged test:
The Court clarified that while ‘artistic work’ under the Copyright Act has a broad scope, ‘design’
under the Designs Act is narrowly defined, limited to features like shape, pattern, or ornamentation applied through an industrial process to create a product that visually appeals to the eye. However, not every work that fails to qualify as an artistic work automatically qualifies for design protection.
To resolve the overlap created by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, the Court laid down a two-pronged test:
Legal clarity meets market growth:
The functional utility test plays a central role in flexibly determining whether a work falls under copyright or design protection, by assessing the dominant purpose of the work along with its visual appeal. However, this very flexibility also introduces a degree of subjectivity, as the test depends heavily on how courts interpret purpose, appeal, and actual use in each case.
Judicially, the Supreme Court’s ruling marks a move toward a more coherent IP regime. By adopting a two-pronged test and drawing from international principles like the functional utility and conceptual separability doctrines, the Court aligns Indian law with global standards while resolving ambiguity under Section 15(2).
For the market, it considers the creator’s intent and how the work is applied, allowing businesses to choose protection strategies based on real-world use. This is particularly helpful for design-heavy industries like fashion and innovation-led manufacturing.
In a highly unusual development, the Supreme Court has ordered liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. even after the resolution plan was approved, the amount paid, and implementation had commenced-an extraordinary outcome almost never witnessed under India’s insolvency regime. The Court’s decision to set aside JSW Steel’s resolution plan underscores that gross violations of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be cured by mere payment or partial ...
The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting issued an advisory to the Online Curated Content Publishers (“OTT platforms”) and Self-regulatory Bodies of OTT platforms on 19thFebruary 2025. It aimed to reiterate the Code of Ethics for these OTT platforms in light of the increased spread of obscene content on online platforms. This emerges amid the debate of imbalance between censorship and artistic freedom in online content against the government.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.