For more intellectual property updates, follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Nasreen Serji, a student at Government Law College, Thrissur.  

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. V. INOX INDIA LTD. [2025 INSC 483]

The Supreme Court in Cryogas v. Inox laid down a two-pronged test to differentiate between an industrial design and copyright. This landmark judgment examined the definitions of ‘artistic work’ and ‘design’ to properly classify an original work. It is a crucial ruling in IP law, assessing both the Copyright Act and the Designs Act. The judgment also addressed the issue of using a copyrighted work for industrial purposes and the protection thereof.

Facts of the case

Inox India Limited, filed a suit before the Commercial Court for copyright infringement against Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express India Pvt Ltd. The alleged infringed properties were the Proprietary Engineering Drawings for LNG’s Semi – trailers and the Literary Works. These drawings design the internal parts of Cryogenic Storage Tanks used to transport gas substances. Inox claimed the industrial drawings were ‘artistic works’ under Sec 2 (c) of the Copyright Act. They also filed for an ad interim injunction. 

LNG Express responded by filing an application for rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, asserting it was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Following a series of proceedings alternating between the Commercial Court and High Court, the case finally appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Contentions 

Appellants, Cryogas and LNG Express, submitted that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings of Inox was clearly a ‘design’ that should have been registered under the Designs Act. However, the claim for copyright was barred by Section 15(2) as it was reproduced more than 50 times. Section 15(2) says that a design which can be registered under the Designs Act but isn’t registered, it loses its copyright protection when reproduced more than 50 times industrially. Inox omitted the number of semi-trailers it had produced.  

The Respondents submitted, the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, were artistic works which are functional and lack visual appeal. Hence, they do not constitute a ‘design’. Further, the Literary Works are a separate claim and should not be linked with the Drawings as per copyright law principles. 

Two-Pronged approach: 

The legislative intention of copyright is to provide a longer protection to original ‘artistic works’ such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures. Copyright protection lasts during the lifetime of the creator plus 60 years. Whereas the Designs Act protects for a shorter period to allow commercial exploitation by the creator of the work. A design is protected for 10 years upon registration and can be extended thereupon. Now, an original work can potentially be registered as a design under the Designs Act. If it hasn’t been registered as a design, the copyright in the same ceases when it is industrially produced more than 50 times. This is enumerated under Sec 15 (2) of the Copyright Act. To apply this provision, the subject has to be a registrable ‘design’ in which copyright exists. 

In Dart Industries Inc and Anr v. Techno Plast and Ors [2007 SCC OnLine Del 892], the Court emphasized that an original drawing enjoys copyright, however, if it always intended to be used for industrial production, then it is limited by Sec 15(2). This implies that industrial designs are governed by the Designs Act. This is the point where a ‘design’ and ‘artistic work’ overlap due to their similarities. 

The Court referred to the Venn Diagram below 

To determine if a work is protected under the Copyright Act or the Designs Act, a two-step test is applied. First, it must be determined if the work is “artistic” and eligible for copyright, or if it is a “design” derived from the original artistic work. If it cannot be copyrighted, the “functional utility” of the work is assessed for protection under the Designs Act. This means that a design whose primary purpose is functional rather than visual cannot be registered as a “design” under the Designs Act.

The Courts in India have emphasized this test in multiple cases to determine the purpose of a design. In Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd [(2008) 10 SCC 657], it was held that the purpose of the Designs Act is to protect the effort and labor applied by a designer to create an original design. In Smithkline Beecham Plc. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd [1999 SCC OnLine Del 965], the design was denied protection as its primary purpose was functional. 

While an original artistic work qualifies for protection under the Copyright Act, if the design derived from it is used for industrial or commercial production, it becomes subject to Sec 15(2). In Microfibres v. Girdhar [2006 SCC OnLine Del 60], the Court denied copyright protection to a design which was a combination of existing patterns and used primarily for industrial production. 

Conclusion

The High Court set aside the Commercial Court’s orders that had rejected Inox’s plaint and denied their request for an ad interim injunction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order in this appeal. It also reaffirmed existing principles to clear ambiguities regarding the position of “design” and “artistic work.” If a drawing is not an original artistic work, it doesn’t automatically become a “design” under the Designs Act. In such instances, this test must be applied. The Hon’ble Court laid down a two-pronged test to assist courts in properly determining the classification of such works in the long run.