A recent decision by the Supreme Court of India in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. sheds light on a long standing ambiguity in intellectual property (IP) law: can technical engineering drawings used in manufacturing can be protected under copyright law, or whether they fall under design law instead?

Background

In 2018, Inox filed a suit against Cryogas and LNG Express in the Commercial Court, alleging that they had copied its proprietary engineering drawings. These drawings were used to design and manufacture cryogenic storage tanks and distribution systems, which are mounted on trailers to transport liquified natural gas (LNG).

Inox claimed that these drawings as well as the accompanying technical literature constituted content original “artisitic” and “literary” works, and therefore protected by the Copyright Act, 1957. Inox sought:

• A declaration that its rights had been violated,
• A permanent injunction to stop further copying,
• Destruction of all copied materials, and
• ₹2 crores (~ 233,800 USD) in damages.

Cryogas and LNG Express argued that the engineering drawings were not protected by copyright but were in fact “designs” under the Designs Act, 2000, because they had been used more than 50 times in an industrial process. Under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright ceases once an unregistered design is applied more than fifty times through an industrial process..

Procedural History

The Commercial Court dismissed Inox’s suit at the outset under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that the the claims were barred under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

On appeal, the Gujarat High Court reversed the dismissal ruling that such complex determinations –  whether the drawings were “artistic works” or “designs”—required a detailed factual and legal inquiry. The High Court reinstated Inox’s suit and its request for a temporary injunction.

Yet again, the Commercial Court dismissed the suit on remand, prompting Inox to approach the Supreme Court.

Issues before the Supreme Court

1. What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an article falls within the limitation set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, thereby classifying it as a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act?
2. Whether the Gujarat High Court erred in setting aside the Commercial Court’s order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)?

These two issues covered both substantive IP law (copyright vs design) and procedural law (when a suit can be dismissed at the threshold under CPC).

Supreme Court’s Judgement

The Supreme Court upheld Gujarat High Court’s view, restoring Inox’s lawsuit and directing the Commercial Court to:

• Adjudicate the interim injunction application within two months, and
• Conclude the full trial within one year.

In other words, on the issue of whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the suit at the threshold without conducting a full trial, the Supreme Court held that such a dismissal was premature, especially when determining whether the drawings were “designs” or “artistic works” required a fact-based, trial-level inquiry.

More importantly, the Court clarified the distinction between “artistic works” (copyright) and “designs” (design law), resolving long-standing confusion:

1. Artistic Work vs Design
   1. Artistic works under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act encompasses drawings, paintings, or any creative visual expression, even something as straightforward as a few lines or shapes, i.e., even if they have no visual appeal
   2. Design, under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, pertains to the appearance (shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation) applied industrially (mass-produced) and judged solely by the eye.

If an artistic work is utilized in industry more than 50 times and isn’t registered under the Designs Act, it forfeits its copyright protection.

2. Can a Work Be Both?

Sometimes, it can! The Court pointed out that the line separating artistic works from designs can get a bit fuzzy. A drawing might initially be seen as an artistic creation, but once it’s used to produce actual products on a large scale, it could shift into the realm of design.

3. A Two-Part Test

To clear up this confusion, the Court introduced a two-part test:

1. Determine if the work is an original artistic creation or if it’s a design applied to a product.
2. If it’s been used in manufacturing, consider whether it has a functional purpose or is just for decoration.

Only elements that are purely decorative can be classified as designs. Functional parts don’t make the cut.

Our Analysis and Conclusion

The key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd can be summarized as follows:

1. Copyright protection for unregistered designs expires after 50 industrial uses.
2. Design protection (under the Designs Act) requires registration and lasts for a shorter period than copyright.
3. Dual protection is prohibited: a design cannot be protected under both Acts simultaneously.

This case is significant because it establishes clear guidelines for tech companies and manufacturers that create engineering drawings or designs for industrial products, startups and designers looking to safeguard their creations under intellectual property law, as well as lawyers and courts, who now have a more defined framework to resolve similar disputes. The Court rightly emphasized that dismissing such suits at the threshold—without factual scrutiny—would be legally premature. This judgment promotes a balanced approach: protecting innovation while ensuring compliance with proper IP registration protocols.

The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes a balance between protecting creativity and fostering innovation. It ensures that original artistic works retain their protection and also mandates that designs intended for mass production adhere to the appropriate legal protocols under the Designs Act.

For Inox, the journey isn’t over but the way forward is now clearer. The Commercial Court is tasked with conducting a full trial and making a decision based on the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court.