Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908Copyright Act, 1957Designs Act, 2000

Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Others, 2025

Clarification of overlap between copyright and design protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, especially in context of industrial application of engineering drawings.

Supreme Court of India·15 April 2025

Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Others, 2025

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

15 April 2025

Judges

Justice Surya Kant ⦁ Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 Designs Act, 2000 Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Facts of the Case

In 2018, Inox India Ltd. filed a copyright infringement suit against Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India.
Inox alleged that Cryogas copied original engineering drawings used in cryogenic semi-trailers (for transporting LNG).
Inox claimed the drawings were “artistic works” under the Copyright Act.
Cryogas argued the works were “designs”, used industrially more than 50 times, thus losing copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
The Commercial Court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, accepting Cryogas’s argument.
The Gujarat High Court reversed the dismissal and reinstated the suit for trial.
Cryogas challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.

Issues

Does industrial application of an artistic work over 50 times automatically exclude it from copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act?
Does the dismissal of a copyright claim under Section 15(2) automatically entitle the work to design protection under the Designs Act?
What is the appropriate test to differentiate between an artistic work and a design intended for industrial use?

Judgement

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, delivered a landmark interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, in relation to industrial designs under the Designs Act, 2000. The case arose from a dispute between Inox India Ltd., which alleged copyright infringement in its engineering drawings, and Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd., which claimed those drawings were actually industrial designs.
The apex court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision, which had reinstated Inox's suit for trial after the Commercial Court had dismissed it prematurely. The Supreme Court found fault with the lower court’s summary dismissal based on the argument that the engineering drawings lost copyright protection because they were used industrially more than 50 times.
The Court emphasized that a suit could not be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (which deals with rejection of plaint) without a full examination of the factual matrix, especially when complex questions of law and fact are intertwined.
The Court categorically rejected the notion that if a drawing is not entitled to copyright protection under Section 15(2), it would automatically qualify for protection under the Designs Act. Protection under the Designs Act, the Court said, requires a separate and independent determination.
To guide future determinations, the Court laid down a two-step legal test to be followed in all such cases involving overlaps between artistic works and industrial designs:
- Step One: Determine whether the subject matter is a purely artistic work (protected under the Copyright Act) or whether it has been used to create a design that has undergone industrial application.
- Step Two: If the work is not eligible for copyright protection due to industrial reproduction, apply the “functional utility” test to assess whether the design qualifies for protection under the Designs Act. If the work’s dominant character is functional rather than aesthetic, it will not qualify as a “design” under the Designs Act.
The Court further instructed the Commercial Court to reconsider the entire issue afresh, applying the test it had outlined and using an Occam’s Razor approach—i.e., simplifying the inquiry to focus only on relevant, material facts and issues.
Additionally, the Court directed the trial court to also independently examine the related issues in the suit such as:
- Alleged infringement of literary works,
- Misappropriation of confidential information and know-how, and
- Whether the proprietary engineering drawings truly fell within the ambit of “designs.”

Held

The appeal filed by Cryogas was dismissed, and the High Court’s decision to restore the suit was upheld.
The Court affirmed that the Commercial Court had erred in law by dismissing the suit under Order VII Rule 11 without conducting even a preliminary trial or inquiry.
Held that:
- Whether a drawing qualifies as a “design” under the Designs Act is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be decided at the stage of plaint rejection.
- The question of whether a drawing is an “artistic work” or a “design” must be evaluated after evidence is presented.
- The industrial application of a design over 50 times, as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, must be proven, and cannot be presumed.
- The mere absence of copyright protection does not confer automatic design protection under the Designs Act.
Directed the Commercial Court to hold a full trial, applying the Court's laid-down two-tier test and resolving all factual and legal disputes comprehensively.

Analysis

Clarification of Section 15(2): The Court clarified the limited operation of Section 15(2), which only extinguishes copyright protection when
The design is capable of registration under the Designs Act: The design is not registered, and It has been industrially applied more than 50 times. The judgment reaffirms that all three conditions must be satisfied to invoke the bar on copyright.
Rejection of Overbroad Application: The Court strongly rejected the mechanical application of Section 15(2) as a blanket disqualifier for all engineering drawings, pointing out that courts must distinguish between: Works with aesthetic value, and Those whose primary function is utilitarian.
Functional Utility Test: The Court emphasized that for protection under the Designs Act, aesthetic appeal must be the primary feature, and not merely a by-product of utility. This aligns Indian law with global jurisprudence where “functionality” bars design protection.
Correct Use of Order VII Rule 11: The judgment provides judicial guidance on the correct application of Order VII Rule 11, reiterating that this procedural tool is not meant to decide disputed facts or eliminate complex IP claims prematurely.
Significance for Engineering & Industrial Sectors: The decision is particularly relevant for industries where technical drawings, blueprints, and schematics are frequently used in manufacturing. The ruling ensures such creators are not left without legal remedy due to a narrow reading of the law.
Legal Doctrine: Occam’s Razor in IP Litigation: The Court’s reference to Occam’s Razor is novel—urging trial courts to eliminate unnecessary complexity and base decisions on the simplest, most direct legal issues. This principle enhances clarity in litigation involving overlapping IP protections.
Broader Impact: This judgment will likely influence how intellectual property rights are asserted and defended in India, especially in cases involving dual protection claims (copyright + design). It also sets a precedent on how courts should approach summary dismissals of IP suits.