Design Rights of Copyright Artistic Work: The Supreme Court Resolves The IP Overlap

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited marks a pivotal moment in Indian intellectual property (IP) jurisprudence, addressing the longstanding tension between copyright protection for artistic works and design protection for industrial products. The case arose from a dispute over engineering drawings for cryogenic storage tanks, where Inox alleged copyright infringement by Cryogas. The core of the matter was whether these technical drawings qualified as “artistic works” under the Copyright Act, or whether they were in fact industrial designs subject to the Designs Act and thus barred from copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Supreme Court laid down a two-pronged test to resolve such overlaps. In this article, we are going to under the concept and the test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court’s judgment provides a critical framework to distinguish between art and applied design, offering much-needed clarity for creators, businesses, and courts dealing with products that straddle the line between creative expression and industrial application.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Cryogas case emerged from a dispute between two companies involved in the manufacture of cryogenic storage tanks, large, specialized containers used to transport liquefied gases at extremely low temperatures. Inox India Ltd., a leading player in this industry, accused Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. of infringing copyright in certain engineering drawings that depicted the design and layout of these cryogenic tanks.

Inox claimed that its technical drawings covering both the external tanker design and internal parts were original artistic works protected under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which defines “artistic work” to include drawings, even if they are technical in nature. It argued that Cryogas had copied or closely replicated these drawings to manufacture similar cryogenic tankers, amounting to copyright infringement.

Cryogas and a co-defendant countered with a crucial defense under Section 15(2) of the same Act. They argued that since the drawings had been used to produce more than 50 copies of a utilitarian product (tanks), the work had crossed the threshold set by Section 15(2), and therefore no longer enjoyed copyright protection. Under this provision, if a work that qualifies as a “design” is mass-produced without registration under the Designs Act 2000, its copyright protection is automatically extinguished.

The matter had a procedural twist as well. The trial court initially dismissed Inox’s claim, accepting Cryogas’s legal argument and rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (on the basis that the suit was barred by law). However, the High Court reversed that decision and ordered a trial on the merits. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, with two key legal questions:

1. Were Inox’s engineering drawings “artistic works” entitled to copyright?
2. Or were they, in fact, unregistered “industrial designs,” thereby excluded from copyright by Section 15(2)?

While the Supreme Court did not decide on the infringement claim itself, it laid down a two-pronged legal test to help lower courts distinguish between artistic works and designs, and sent the case back for a full trial.

This case sits at the intersection of art, industry, and intellectual property law, highlighting how technical creativity, when applied to mass-manufactured products, must navigate both copyright and design regimes carefully.

KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS REFERENCED IN THE CASE

1. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957: This is the central provision in the case. It states that if an artistic work is capable of being registered as a design under the Designs Act, and more than 50 copies of it are made by an industrial process, the work ceases to enjoy copyright protection unless it is registered under the Designs Act. This prevents perpetual copyright monopolies over mass-produced designs.
2. Designs Act, 2000:Though not a section-specific citation, the Designs Act provides the exclusive framework for protecting industrial designs in India. It grants limited-term protection (10 years, with an additional 5-year extension) for designs that are novel and have visual or aesthetic appeal, as opposed to purely functional utility.
3. Section 52(1)(w) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Not applied but discussed): This section creates an exception to copyright infringement by allowing the conversion of 2D artistic works into 3D objects for use in a functional device, provided the artistic work depicts a functional part. Though not argued by the parties in this case, its relevance lies in distinguishing copyrightable artistic works from utilitarian applications.
4. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908:This procedural rule was invoked by Cryogas to seek rejection of Inox’s plaint on the ground that the claim was barred by law (i.e., due to Section 15(2)). The Supreme Court rejected this procedural shortcut and held that the nature of the drawings and their copyright status required a full trial.

CONCEPT LAID DOWN IN THE CASE

The Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025) laid down a clear and structured legal framework to distinguish between artistic works protected under copyright law and industrial designs governed by the Designs Act, 2000. The core concept that emerged from this judgment is the “Two-Pronged Test”, developed to address the overlap between these two intellectual property regimes and to give courts a consistent method for classification.

The Two-Pronged Test: Core of the Cryogas Concept

The Supreme Court formulated the following test (Para 60 of the judgment):

1. Nature of the Work (Art or Design?)
   • Question: Is the work purely an artistic work deserving copyright?
     Or is it an industrial design derived from an artistic work and used in a mass-manufactured product?
   • If the work was created for industrial application and more than 50 copies were made, Section 15(2) applies; copyright is extinguished unless design registration was obtained.
   • Focus: Original intent and use of the work.
2. Functional Utility (Design or Too Functional?)
   • Question: Even if the work is a design, does it have any visual appeal beyond its functional use?
   • If the design is purely dictated by function, it cannot be protected under the Designs Act either.
   • This test ensures that purely utilitarian features don’t get monopolized under IP law.
   • Focus: Whether the design is aesthetically distinguishable from its utilitarian purpose.

TMWala offers legal clarity and documentation services to help assess whether your creation is best safeguarded under copyright or design law, helping avoid costly litigation or IP loopholes.

BROADER LEGAL AND POLICY CONCEPTS ESTABLISHED

1. Harmonization of IP Laws: The Court emphasized reading the Copyright Act and Designs Act in harmony, ensuring that creators do not bypass the time limit of design protection to claim perpetual copyright.
2. Prevention of IP Overreach: It reaffirmed that copyright cannot be used as a backdoor to gain perpetual protection over industrial products that should have been registered under the Designs Act.
3. Dominant Purpose Doctrine: The Court relied on the concept of dominant purpose. If the primary purpose of the design is functionality, it may not qualify even under design law, let alone copyright.
4. International Parallels: The judgment drew from UK, U.S., and TRIPS frameworks, especially the U.S. “conceptual separability” doctrine, which distinguishes aesthetic features from functional ones for copyright purposes.
5. Preserving the Public Domain: By reinforcing the 50-copy rule under Section 15(2), the Court reaffirmed a crucial policy objective: ensuring that industrially applied designs eventually enter the public domain unless protected under the Designs Act.

With growing awareness of international standards, platforms like TMWala can also assist in aligning your IP protection with global best practices, essential for businesses with cross-border ambitions.

CONCLUSION

The Cryogas v. Inox (2025) judgment marks a significant development in Indian intellectual property law by clearly demarcating the boundaries between copyright and industrial design protection. The Supreme Court introduced a two-pronged test to determine whether a work qualifies as an artistic work under the Copyright Act or as a design under the Designs Act, and further examined whether a design is purely functional or has aesthetic value. The ruling emphasized that once an artistic work is applied to an industrial product and more than fifty copies are made, copyright protection ceases unless the design is duly registered.

By doing so, the Court reinforced the intent behind Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act to prevent misuse of copyright as a means to gain perpetual monopoly over commercially exploited designs. The judgment also acknowledged the importance of evaluating functional utility and visual appeal, aligning Indian jurisprudence with international standards. Ultimately, the decision ensures a balanced approach that protects genuine artistic creativity while upholding the limited-term protection intended for industrial designs, preserving both innovation and public access.