A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, delivered a landmark judgement in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors.[1], which distinguished between the protection of an artistic work and design under the Copyright Act[2] and Designs Act[3]. The decision deals with the ambit of copyright protection for artistic works, which have a default copyright protection upon creation, once subject to industrial process and reproduction.[4] The Court upheld the decision by the Gujarat High Court, rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure[5] and ordering a fresh trial on the matter. In the process, the Supreme Court laid down a Two-Pronged Test to examine the scope of protection of an artistic work having industrial application and distinguish between works protected by copyright and industrial design.[6]
Initial Proceedings
The initial suit arose from a dispute between the parties regarding alleged infringement of intellectual property rights related to the parts of Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems used in the design of LNG Semi-trailers. The Case was filed before the 4th Additional District Court, i.e., the Commercial Court, Vadodara.[7] Inox, who filed the copyright infringement suit against Cryogas and LNG, claimed that they developed the works to meet the requirements of storing and transporting LNG Semi-trailers suitable for Indian roads. They alleged unauthorised usage of these works in the design of LNG Semi-trailers by Cryogas and LNG. They sought declaratory relief, damages of rupees 2 crores, and a permanent injunction against LNG against usage of their works[8]. LNG moved an application for rejection of suit, contending that the works came under the ambit of design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act and had lost its copyright protection given fact that it had been used to reproduce industrial articles for than fifty times and according to Section 15(2) of the copyright act, copyright protection would not subsist.[9]
Inox’s plaint was dismissed by the Commercial Court, and the defendant’s preliminary objection was accepted. This was overturned by the Gujarat High Court, directing the Commercial Court to issue separate orders while adjudicating pending orders. In light of the direction, separate orders were passed by the Commercial Court, dismissing Inox’s plaint and accepting LNG’s application for rejection of the plaint.[10]
The present appeal was filed at the Supreme Court when the Gujarat High Court set aside the Commercial Courts order, on challenge by Inox. The Supreme Court answered the question regarding the classification of a work as copyright or design and the protection of the same under the Copyright Act 1957. The Two-Pronged Test provides a solution to deciphering the situation.
The Appellants were represented by Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan and the respondents were represented by Sr. Adv. Chander M Lall and J Sai Deepak.
Supreme Court Decision and The Test
Inox India Limited (Inox) filed a suit against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (Cryogas) and LNG Express India Private Limited (LNG), over a dispute alleging copyright infringement in Proprietary Engineering Drawings and Literary Works related to LNG Semi-Trailers.
The Court was faced with the issue of distinguishing between a copyright work and an industrial design, and in the process, interpreting Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Section 15 of the Copyright Act envisages a special provision for copyrights in designs registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act 2000. Section 15(1) lays down that a copyright shall not subsist under the Copyright Act for any artistic work or design registered under the Designs Act. Restrictions on copyright protection for artistic work or design that are capable of being registered under the Designs Act are laid down in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. According to the clause, copyright protection for the unregistered design shall cease to exist if the copyright owner, or anyone else with the copyright license, applies the design to reproduce the article more than 50 times by way of an industrial process.
The Court laid down the Two-Pronged Test to deal with the interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and to assess the primary purpose of the article, i.e., functional or artistic. The Two-Pronged Test considers:
(i) If the work involved is something that qualifies purely as an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the Copyright Act, or if it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act;
(ii) On failure to qualify for copyright protection, the ‘functional utility’ test will be applied to determine the dominant purpose of the work and ascertain its qualification for protection under the Design Act.[11]
The Functional Utility test is applied globally and in India to determine if a work qualifies for protection under the Designs Act. This is imperative as protection under the Designs Act is not granted by default, similar to copyright, and requires formal registration.[12] The Court ruled that the industrial application of an artistic work as a design is subject to limitations set forth under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Such an understanding is necessary to ensure that the provisions in each statute serve their purpose and do not encroach upon the other.
The Court dismissed the Appeal and ordered its concurrence with the Gujarat High Court’s decision, warranting a trial in light of the triable issues. It was also noted that the Commercial Court misread the plaint and misapplied legal principles, overlooking the distinction between copyrightable work and industrial design. Interpreting the expression of ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) in a broader and inclusive sense,[13]the Court held that artistic works could include abstract creations, even including arbitrarily drawn lines or curves, irrespective of aesthetic appeal and dimensions involved.
The Court noted that Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act protects the right to reproduce artistic work in any material form, including depiction of two-dimensional work in three-dimensions and vice versa.[14] However, the ambit of the same changes on the reproduction of the work by an industrial process. This industrial process may include manual, mechanical, or chemical means, resulting in an article that may appeal to the eye. In the case that the description of the work falls under such a construction, it would fall under the ambit of ‘design’ within the scope of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act.[15]
The Court ruled that while a work within the ambit of artistic work may qualify for copyright protection, its industrial and commercial application would be subject to the limitations of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Court explained that a work that does not qualify as an artistic work under the Copyright Act would not, by default, receive protection under the ambit of design. The design would need to be registered under the Designs Act for protection.[16] It concluded that the work does not lose protection under the Copyright Act, in its application in the creation of an industrial product using a design derived from the work.[17]
In essence, applying the Two-Pronged Test and Functional Utility Test, a work that is purely artistic or of aesthetic sense would be liable to protection under the Copyright Act. In the case that such works are subject to industrial processing, the copyright protection will cease to exist, and it can be protected by registration under the Designs Act, subject to its provisions. The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity in creating a distinction between copyright works and industrial design, of aesthetic expression, and of industrial application.[18] Imperative to note that a shape or design that is purely functional and has no visual or eye appeal element would not be eligible for design protection, invoking the functional v. aesthetic dichotomy, i.e. functional feature in product design is not protected under the Design Act, it is merely the aesthetic or ornamental features that are protected.
Author: T H Suhail, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
[1] Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors., 2025 INSC 483.
[2] The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India)
[3] The Designs Act, 2000, No. 16, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)
[4] Aravinth Rajagopal, Supreme Court Clarifies Copyright vs. Design Law in Landmark Case, IR Global (May 1, 2025), https://irglobal.com/article/supreme-court-clarifies-copyright-vs-design-law-in-landmark-case/.
[5] The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No.5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India)
[6] Riya Rathore, Copyright V. Design Protection: Supreme Court Formulates Two-Pronged Approach To Address The Conundrum By Section 15(2) Copyright Act, Verdictum (Apr. 15, 2025, 6:30 PM), https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/two-pronged-approach-to-address-conundrum-by-section-15-2-copyright-act-2025-insc-483-cryogas-equipment-pvt-ltd-v-inox-india-ltd-1574281.
[7] Aravinth Rajagopal, supra note 3.
[8] Dr. Kalyan Kankanala, Copyright Vs Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests, BananaIP (Apr. 16, 2025), https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/copyright-vs-design-protection-supreme-court-ruling-cryogas-inox/.
[9] Aravinth Rajagopal, supra note 3.
[10] Id.
[11] Cryogas, supra note 2, Para 60.
[12] Riya Rathore, supra note 4.
[13] Apoorva, Supreme Court resolves complexities of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act with a two-pronged approach for design protection, SCCOnline (Apr. 17, 2025), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/17/supreme-court-section-15-2-copyright-act-two-pronged-approach-designs-act/.
[14] Cryogas, supra note 2, Para 55.
[15] Cryogas, supra note 2, Para 56.
[16] Cryogas, supra note 2, Para 57.
[17] Apoorva, supra note 11.
[18] Dr. Kalyan Kankanala, supra note 6.