# Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 483
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5174 of 2025
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cryogas-equipment-private-limited-v-inox-india-limited-and-others-38556
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

i) What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an
article falls within the limitation set out in s.15(2) of the Copyright
Act, thereby classifying it as a 'design' u/s.2(d) of the Designs
Act; ii) Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of
the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application u/Or.VII,
R.11 of the CPC.
Headnotes†
Copyright Act, 1957 - s.15(2) - Designs Act, 2000 - s.2(d) -
What are the parameters for determining whether a work or
an article falls within the limitation set out in s.15(2) of the
Copyright Act, thereby classifying it as a 'design' u/s.2(d) of
the Designs Act:
Held: The original artistic work, which initially enjoys copyright
protection, does not lose the same merely because a 'design'
derived from it has been industrially applied to create a product -
While the expression 'artistic work' has a broad spectrum, 'design' is
restricted to specific features such as shape, configuration, pattern,
ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours, applied to an
article through an industrial process, resulting in a finished product
that appeals to the eye - These visually appealing features, when
applied industrially, define a 'design' under the Designs Act - The
inquiry cannot be concluded merely by assuming that what does
not qualify as an 'artistic work', within the meaning of the Copyright
Act, would automatically receive protection under the Designs
Act - While protection under the Designs Act is not as enduring
as that under the Copyright Act, it is not granted by default and
requires specific criteria to be met - In this regard, courts in India
and globally consistently apply the test of 'functional utility' to
* Author
766
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
determine whether a work qualifies for protection under the Designs
Act - This Court has formulated a two-pronged approach in order
to crack open the conundrum caused by s.15(2) of the Copyright
Act so as to ascertain whether a work is qualified to be protected
by the Designs Act - This test shall consider: (i) whether the work
in question is purely an 'artistic work' entitled to protection under the
Copyright Act or whether it is a 'design' derived from such original
artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon
the language in s.15(2) of the Copyright Act; (ii) if such a work
does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of 'functional
utility' will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant
purpose, and then ascertain whether it would qualify for design
protection under the Design Act - The courts, while applying this
test, ought to undertake a case specific inquiry guided by statutory
provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative jurisprudence.
[Paras 58, 59, 60, 61]
Copyright Act, 1957 - Designs Act, 2000 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Respondent no.1 filed a trademark suit
before the Commercial Court against the appellants - Appellant
moved its application u/Or. VII, R.11 of CPC, seeking rejection
of the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable u/s.15(2)
of the Copyright Act - It was contended that the Proprietary
Engineering Drawings, for which respondent no.1 claimed
copyright protection, fell within the definition of 'design'
u/s.2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 - Commercial Court allowed
the said application and rejected respondent no.1's plaint -
High Court remanded the matter to Commercial Court for
fresh consideration - The Commercial Court reconsidered the
application and allowed the application u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC
and rejected the plaint - Respondent no.1 again approached
the High Court challenging the order of the Commercial
Court - The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside
the Commercial Court's orders - Whether the High Court erred
in setting aside the order of the Commercial Court and thus
rejecting the application u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC:
Held: The core dispute revolves around whether the 'Proprietary
Engineering Drawings' qua

## Text

_Characters 0–39,654 of 89,900. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39654 for what follows._

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 765 : 2025 INSC 483
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
v.
Inox India Limited and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 5174 of 2025)
15 April 2025
[Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
i) What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an
article falls within the limitation set out in s.15(2) of the Copyright
Act, thereby classifying it as a 'design' u/s.2(d) of the Designs
Act; ii) Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of
the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application u/Or.VII,
R.11 of the CPC.
Headnotes†
Copyright Act, 1957 - s.15(2) - Designs Act, 2000 - s.2(d) -
What are the parameters for determining whether a work or
an article falls within the limitation set out in s.15(2) of the
Copyright Act, thereby classifying it as a 'design' u/s.2(d) of
the Designs Act:
Held: The original artistic work, which initially enjoys copyright
protection, does not lose the same merely because a 'design'
derived from it has been industrially applied to create a product -
While the expression 'artistic work' has a broad spectrum, 'design' is
restricted to specific features such as shape, configuration, pattern,
ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours, applied to an
article through an industrial process, resulting in a finished product
that appeals to the eye - These visually appealing features, when
applied industrially, define a 'design' under the Designs Act - The
inquiry cannot be concluded merely by assuming that what does
not qualify as an 'artistic work', within the meaning of the Copyright
Act, would automatically receive protection under the Designs
Act - While protection under the Designs Act is not as enduring
as that under the Copyright Act, it is not granted by default and
requires specific criteria to be met - In this regard, courts in India
and globally consistently apply the test of 'functional utility' to
* Author
766
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
determine whether a work qualifies for protection under the Designs
Act - This Court has formulated a two-pronged approach in order
to crack open the conundrum caused by s.15(2) of the Copyright
Act so as to ascertain whether a work is qualified to be protected
by the Designs Act - This test shall consider: (i) whether the work
in question is purely an 'artistic work' entitled to protection under the
Copyright Act or whether it is a 'design' derived from such original
artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon
the language in s.15(2) of the Copyright Act; (ii) if such a work
does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of 'functional
utility' will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant
purpose, and then ascertain whether it would qualify for design
protection under the Design Act - The courts, while applying this
test, ought to undertake a case specific inquiry guided by statutory
provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative jurisprudence.
[Paras 58, 59, 60, 61]
Copyright Act, 1957 - Designs Act, 2000 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Respondent no.1 filed a trademark suit
before the Commercial Court against the appellants - Appellant
moved its application u/Or. VII, R.11 of CPC, seeking rejection
of the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable u/s.15(2)
of the Copyright Act - It was contended that the Proprietary
Engineering Drawings, for which respondent no.1 claimed
copyright protection, fell within the definition of 'design'
u/s.2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 - Commercial Court allowed
the said application and rejected respondent no.1's plaint -
High Court remanded the matter to Commercial Court for
fresh consideration - The Commercial Court reconsidered the
application and allowed the application u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC
and rejected the plaint - Respondent no.1 again approached
the High Court challenging the order of the Commercial
Court - The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside
the Commercial Court's orders - Whether the High Court erred
in setting aside the order of the Commercial Court and thus
rejecting the application u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC:
Held: The core dispute revolves around whether the 'Proprietary
Engineering Drawings' qualify as drawings u/s.2(c) of the Copyright
Act or whether they fall within the definition of a 'design' u/s.2(d)
of the Designs Act, necessitating a detailed examination - This
Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning of the High
Court that the question as to whether the original artistic work
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
767
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
would fall within the meaning of 'design' under the Designs Act
cannot be answered while deciding an application u/Or.VII, R.11
of the CPC - This stage would involve only a prima facie inquiry
as to the disclosure of cause of action in the plaint - The question
pertaining to ascertaining the true nature of the 'Proprietary
Engineering Drawings' involves a mixed question of law and fact
and could not have been decided by the Commercial Court at a
preliminary stage based upon such a casual appraisal of the plaint
averments - This Court, therefore concur with the High Court that
this case warrants a trial given the triable issues involved - The
plaintiff before the Commercial Court, i.e., respondent no.1, was
erroneously non-suited due to incorrect assumptions made by
the Commercial Court which misread the plaint, misapplied legal
principles and overlooked the distinction between 'artistic work'
and 'design' - In light of the discussion on relevant precedents
and legal positions, and the clear test outlined, the Commercial
Court is directed to consider the issue afresh and conduct trial by
adopting an Occam's Razor approach to ascertain the true nature
of the 'Proprietary Engineering Drawings'. [Paras 66(b), 67, 68, 69]
Case Law Cited
Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati
Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Bhonsle, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844;
Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. [2008] 7 SCR
397 : (2008) 10 SCC 657 - referred to.
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 60; Dart
Industries Inc. and Another v. Techno Plast and Others, 2007
SCC OnLine Del 892; Mattel, Inc. v. Jayant Agarwalla, 2008 SCC
Online Del 1059; Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar and Co., 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 1647; Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT, 2015
SCC OnLine Bom 958; Fun World and Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Nimil KK, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 219; Smithkline Beecham Plc. v.
Hindustan Lever Ltd., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 965; Tractors and
Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd, 2012 SCC
OnLine Mad 5470; Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint and Hardwares,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 1980; Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon
Industries Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 565; Standard Corporation
India Ltd. v. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine
Mad 850; Photoquip India Ltd. v. Delhi Photo Store, 2014 SCC
OnLine Bom 1088; TTK Prestige Ltd. v. KCM Appliances Pvt.
Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2129 - referred to.
768
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Amp v. Utilux [1972] RPC 103; Interlego A.G v. Tyco Industries
Inc and Others [1988] UKPC 3; Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74
S. Ct. 460, 98 L. Ed. 630 (1954); Esquire Inc v. Ringer, 591 F.2d
796 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl,
Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980); Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy
Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411 (2d Cir.1985); Brandir International,
Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir.1987);
Pivot Point Int'l, Inc. v. Charlene Prods., Inc., 372 F.3d 913 (7th
Cir. 2004); Galiano v. Harrah's Operating Co., 416 F.3d 411, 419
(5th Cir. 2005); Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137
S. Ct. 1002, 197 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2017) - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883
(Paris Convention); Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works, 1886 (Berne Convention); Agreement on Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995 (TRIPS).
List of Acts
Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 2000; Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 1958; English Registered Designs Act, 1949; Penal
Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Section 15(2) of Copyright Act, 1957; Section 2(d) of Design
Act, 2000; Design; Rejection of plaint; Order VII, Rule 11;
Copyright protection; Artistic work; Shape; Configuration; Pattern;
Ornamentation; Composition of lines or colours; Test of 'functional
utility'; Industrial process; Case specific inquiry guided by statutory
provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative jurisprudence;
Proprietary Engineering Drawings; Detailed examination; Mixed
question of law and fact; Triable issues.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5174 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.2024 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in AFO No. 119 of 2024
With
Civil Appeal No. 5175 of 2025
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
769
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Rahul Chitnis, Sudipto Sircar, Hersh Desai,
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Aditya Khanna, Samrat Mehta, Chander
Shekhar Ashri.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Chander M Lall, J Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs., Smriti Yadav, Nirupam
Lodha, Dhiren Karania, Kshitij Parashar, Gautam Wadhwa,
Ms. Annanya Mehan, R Abhishek, For M/S. Khaitan & Co..
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The captioned appeals arise from a common judgement dated
22.10.2024 delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
(High Court) in a dispute between the parties primarily concerning
an alleged copyright infringement, whereby the 4th Additional District
Judge at Vadodara's (Commercial Court) order dated 03.05.2024
allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was set aside, and the Suit filed by
Respondent No. 2 was restored to its original number (Impugned
Judgement).
3.
The parties to the appeal are, inter alia embroiled in a dispute
concerning the purported infringement of intellectual property
(IP) rights in relation to the designing and manufacturing of the
internal parts of Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems
which are mounted on Trailers and Semi-Trailers, to effectively
transport industrial gases, liquified natural gas (LNG) and such
like substances.
A.
Facts
4.
That being so, given the shared sequence of events underlying these
two appeals, this presents an appropriate juncture for a detailed
examination of the factual matrix.
770
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.1. The dispute between the parties arose when Respondent No.
1 in these appeals, Inox India Limited (Inox), filed Trademark
Suit No. 3/2019 (Suit) before the Commercial Court against the
Appellants, i.e. Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (Cryogas)
and LNG Express India Private Limited (LNG Express), on
24.09.2018. Inox primarily alleged that Cryogas, LNG Express,
and others had infringed two distinct types of copyright: (i) the
drawings of LNG Semi-trailers developed by Inox (Proprietary
Engineering Drawings); and (ii) the details, processes,
descriptions and narrations written by Inox employees in creating
the Proprietary Engineering Drawings (Literary Works). These
IPs were supposedly developed by Inox to meet the specific
requirements for storing and transporting sophisticated LNG
Semi-trailers suitable for Indian roads.
4.2. In this Suit, Inox sought relief in terms of: (i) a declaration
that Cryogas, LNG Express and others have infringed Inox's
Proprietary Engineering Drawings, IP and Literary Works; (ii)
a permanent injunction restraining Cryogas, LNG Express
and the other associated parties from using or reproducing
any drawings or works similar to that of Inox's Proprietary
Engineering Drawings or Literary Works; (iii) a permanent
injunction against the use of any IP or know-how associated with
manufacturing the impugned products; (iv) an order directing
Cryogas, LNG Express and others to surrender all infringing
materials for destruction, including drawings, trailers, labels
and other items using the Proprietary Engineering Drawings;
and (v) an award of damages amounting to Rs. 2 Crores for
copyright infringement.
4.3. In addition, Inox filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain
Cryogas, LNG Express, and others from infringing its IP rights
and confidential information during the pendency of the Suit.
4.4. In response thereto, LNG Express moved its application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Suit on
the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of
the Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act). It primarily contended
that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, for which Inox
claimed copyright protection, fell within the definition of a 'design'
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
771
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (Designs Act). It
argued that Inox had lost copyrights for the said drawings by
failing to register them under the Designs Act. Furthermore,
LNG Express asserted that copyright does not subsist in any
design that is registered or capable of being registered under
the Designs Act once it has been reproduced more than fifty
times by an industrial process, either by the copyright owner or
any authorised licensee. Specifically, it contested Inox's claim of
generating revenue amounting to Rupees 122 crores, arguing
that such proceeds could only have been realised through the
sale of Cryogenic Semi-trailers manufactured by an industrial
process and using the Proprietary Engineering Drawings in
excess of the stipulated threshold of fifty reproductions. In this
context, LNG Express assailed that protection could not be
sought under the Copyright Act by virtue of Section 15(2), and
the Suit thus falls at the threshold.
4.5. The Commercial Court, on 01.04.2022, allowed the application
filed by LNG Express under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
consequently rejecting Inox's plaint and its application for
interim injunction. Inox filed two appeals before the High
Court challenging the orders of the Commercial Court. On
13.03.2024, the High Court, through a common order set aside
the Commercial Court's order, holding that it erred in allowing
the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which
had led to the rejection of both the plaint and the prayer for
interim injunction. The High Court remanded the matter to the
Commercial Court for fresh consideration, restoring the Suit to
its original number and directing it to adjudicate the pending
applications concurrently while issuing separate orders for each.
4.6. Subsequently, on 03.05.2024, in compliance with the High
Court's directions, the Commercial Court reconsidered the
aforementioned applications. By way of separate orders, it
allowed LNG Express' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, resulting in the rejection of the plaint, and consequently
dismissed Inox's application for ad interim injunction.
4.7. Inox once again approached the High Court, challenging the
Commercial Court's orders dated 03.05.2024 through separate
appeals. The High Court, in turn, vide the Impugned Judgment,
772
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
set aside the Commercial Court's orders based on the following
rationale and has issued: (i) The Commercial Court erred in
law by presuming that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings
qualified as a 'design' under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act
and stood utilised to manufacture a product more than fifty
times through an industrial process, thereby excluding it from
protection under the Copyright Act; (ii) LNG Express' application
under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC was rejected, and the
Suit was restored to its original number; (iii) Inox's interim
injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
CPC was reinstated; and (iv) The restored interim injunction
application was directed to be decided by the Commercial Court
on its merits independently and as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within eight weeks.
4.8. Hence, the instant appeals. We may clarify at this stage that
after reserving our judgment on 29.01.2025 and pending the
present proceedings, the Commercial Court was permitted
to proceed with hearing the parties on the interim application
in accordance with the High Court's directions. However, the
passing of the final order was directed to remain in abeyance.
B.
Contentions on behalf of the Appellants
5.
Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Cryogas
and LNG Express, vehemently argued that the High Court erred
in setting aside the Commercial Court's order dated 03.05.2024,
which had allowed their application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC. In support of his contentions, he advanced the following
submissions:
(a) Inox filed the Suit seeking protection of the Proprietary
Engineering Drawings under the Copyright Act, alleging that
Cryogas and LNG Express had infringed its IP rights in both the
artistic elements of the drawings and the literary components
detailing the processes and descriptions therein. Inox further
sought to restrain Cryogas and LNG Express from converting
the two-dimensional industrial drawings of cryogenic Semitrailers into three-dimensional representations. However, these
pleas ought to be outrightly rejected as they have been raised
as an afterthought to circumvent the applicability of Section
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
773
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
15(2) of the Copyright Act. Admittedly, Semi-trailers can only
be manufactured through an industrial and mechanical process.
(b) LNG and Cryogenic Semi-trailers worldwide are designed in
accordance with international standard-setting bodies such as
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the
Pressure Equipment Directive (PED). Given that these trailers
are used for transporting cryogenic liquids, their design must
comply with country-specific regulations, while international
standards prescribe detailed guidelines on design parameters,
material selection, and internal components. Accordingly, all
relevant stakeholders, including the parties herein, adhere to
PED stipulations and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways of India.
(c)
The Suit is barred under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act,
as the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, for which Inox claims
copyright infringement, are capable of being registered under
the Designs Act. The copyright protection for such drawings
would cease to subsist in view of Section 15(2) of the Copyright
Act once Semi-trailers are reproduced or manufactured more
than fifty times through an industrial process.
(d) The right to protect IP in terms of the Proprietary Engineering
Drawings would, however, be available to Inox under the
Designs Act, provided the said drawings were registered
under it. Furthermore, 'Semi-trailers' or 'Road Vehicle Trailers'
manufactured by Inox fall within the classification under Schedule
III of the Designs Act, specifically Class 12-10. Consequently,
to claim an IP infringement, Inox should have registered the
Proprietary Engineering Drawings under the Designs Act.
(e) The objective of the Copyright Act is to protect artistic works
such as paintings, sculptures, and other forms of creative
expression for extended periods. In contrast, the Designs Act
is intended to safeguard industrial designs for a limited duration
to facilitate commercial exploitation. The Legislature's intent
was thus to provide protection for industrial designs, such as
the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, under the Designs Act
rather than the Copyright Act, so as to ensure that such works
are regulated within the appropriate legal framework.
774
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(f)
Inox has failed to disclose in its plaint before the Commercial
Court the number of Semi-trailers it has produced through an
industrial process. Instead, it has engaged in strategic drafting
by selectively revealing that it has generated revenue of Rupees
122 crores, seemingly to circumvent the legal effect of Section
15(2) of the Copyright Act. However, such revenue can be
reasonably inferred to result from the production of more than
fifty Semi-trailers, thereby triggering the bar under Section 15(2)
of the Copyright Act. Inox cannot rely on evasive drafting to
create a misleading impression of a valid cause of action. These
contentions were buttressed by relying on the ratio laid down in
decisions such as Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others v.
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Bhonsle.1
(g)
Inox has erroneously asserted that the Proprietary Engineering
Drawings are not capable of registration as 'designs' under
Section 2(d) of the Designs Act on the ground that the products
manufactured using these drawings lack visual appeal, as they
pertain to the inner vessel of the Semi-trailer, which remains
concealed. This claim ought to be rejected, as the drawings fall
within the category of designs capable of registration under the
Designs Act but have not been registered. Moreover, it is incorrect
to suggest that the Semi-trailers lack visual appeal, given that the
drawings also encompass the external shape and components
of a Semi-trailer. In any case, the question of visual appeal is
inherently subjective and cannot be a determinative factor for
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
(h) The scope of inquiry before the Commercial Court in the Suit
is limited to determining whether the Proprietary Engineering
Drawings are capable of registration under the Designs Act
and, if they have not been so registered, whether they lose
the protection of the Copyright Act once applied to articles
through an industrial process. The question of such drawings
being subject to the limitations imposed by Section 15(2) of
the Copyright Act is a pure question of law, which should be
decided based on a prima facie appraisal of the averments in
the plaint, without the necessity of adducing further evidence.
1
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3844.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
775
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
(i)
Lastly, Inox's assertion that the plaint also pertains to the
alleged theft of confidential information and trade secrets by
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, ought to be rejected at the threshold.
The plaint contains no specific prayers regarding such claims,
and any alleged breach of this nature arising from a common
law right would be actionable before a civil court rather than a
Commercial Court, which inter alia may only adjudicate matters
related to IP rights. Moreover, a perusal of the plaint reveals that
the Suit has been filed for copyright infringement under Section
62(2) of the Copyright Act, which falls within the jurisdiction of
the Commercial Court.
C.
Contentions on behalf of Respondent No. 1
6.
Mr. Chander M. Lall and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Learned Senior Counsels
representing Inox, refuted the claims put forth by Cryogas and LNG
Express and instead adduced the following submissions:
(a) The Suit pertains to two distinct categories of copyright: the
Proprietary Engineering Drawings and the Literary Work.
Consequently, the reliefs sought in the Suit are also distinct
in nature. As a result, each IP claim should be assessed
independently, with due consideration given to its unique
characteristics and legal implications.
(b) Industrial drawings, such as the Proprietary Engineering
Drawings, fall within the definition of 'artistic works' under Section
2(c) of the Copyright Act. An artistic work can be denied copyright
protection by invoking Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act only
if such work is either registered or capable of being registered
under the Designs Act. Moreover, the Proprietary Engineering
Drawings pertain to the internal components of a cryogenic
container and are excluded by the exception under Section
2 of the Designs Act, which states that a registrable design
'does not include any mode or principle of construction or
anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device'.
Furthermore, these drawings lack visual appeal, a necessary
criterion for a 'design' under the Designs Act. Accordingly,
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act is inapplicable, and the
Proprietary Engineering Drawings cannot be deemed capable
of registration under the Designs Act.
776
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(c)
The Literary Work in question is not subject to the bar under
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Commercial Court erred
in concluding that the Literary Work, including details, processes,
and descriptions, is merely a reference to the Proprietary
Engineering Drawings and the information contained therein.
Such an interpretation incorrectly assumes that all the rights
asserted in the plaint are intrinsically linked to the Proprietary
Engineering Drawings. This approach is inconsistent with
fundamental principles of copyright law, which recognise that
each category of copyright protection is distinct and must be
assessed independently.
(d) The infringement arising from the theft of confidential information
constitutes a distinct legal issue and is not subject to the
limitations imposed by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
Courts have consistently recognised that confidential information
is a separate legal concept possessing independent value,
warranting protection under common law principles. Accordingly,
the misappropriation of confidential information should be
assessed on its own merits.
(e) The issues concerning the three IPs in question are distinct and
separate, a fact that the Commercial Court failed to appreciate
while allowing LNG Express' application under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC. The Commercial Court proceeded under the
erroneous assumption that an 'original artistic work' automatically
loses protection under the Copyright Act once it is applied to
an article through an industrial process. The Commercial Court
further failed to consider the true meaning and scope of 'design'
under the Designs Act. That apart, the claims concerning the
infringement of the Literary Work and the theft of confidential
information fall outside the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC and could not have been summarily rejected.
(f)
The determination of whether the original artistic work qualifies
as a 'design capable of being registered' under the Designs Act
cannot be made while deciding an application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC. At this stage, the jurisdiction of the court is
limited to conducting a prima facie inquiry to ascertain whether
or not the plaint discloses a cause of action. The issue at hand
involves a mixed question of law and fact and thus requires
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
777
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
a full trial wherein both parties can present evidence before a
conclusive finding can be drawn.
(g)
Inox, in its Suit, has also sought an injunction restraining Cryogas,
LNG Express, and others from converting the two-dimensional
Proprietary Engineering Drawings into three-dimensional objects.
The Local Commissioner's Report dated 26.09.2018 provides
substantive evidence in this regard, revealing that several files
containing Inox's proprietary materials-including inspection
reports, general test plans, shop weld plans, quality control
programs, and drawing design calculations-were found at the
premises of LNG Express and Cryogas. These documents pertain
to the quality control processes of Inox's proprietary materials and
products, further substantiating the claim of unauthorised use.
D.
Issues
7.
Having perused the factual matrix and on consideration of the
rival contentions advanced by the parties, it is patently clear that
the singular issue which invites our analysis, revolves around
the maintainability of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC. However, given the abstruse nature of the underlying
dispute, stemming from a fundamental dissonance in the parties'
interpretations of the applicability of the Designs Act, we deem it
appropriate to adjudicate and analyse the following issues:
i.
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?
ii.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the
Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC?
E.
Analysis
E.1 Issue No. 1: The parameters for determining whether a work
or an article falls within the limitation set out in Section 15(2)
of the Copyright Act
8.
We may clarify at the very outset that the discussion herein would
be limited to determining the distinction between a 'design' under
778
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Designs Act and an 'artistic work' that might warrant copyright
protection. To be precise, we are not, either expressly or implicitly,
addressing the merits of the case. This examination has been
prompted by the intrinsic disagreement posited by the parties in
terms of the applicability of the Designs Act. Such a divergence in
interpretation brings to light an interesting juxtaposition and perhaps
a grey area which has not been seemingly addressed by this Court in
the past. In this context, we find it appropriate to bridge this gap by
conducting a conclusive analysis through a two-pronged approach:
(i) examining the current IP statutory framework in India; and (ii)
evaluating the criteria considered and tests adopted across various
jurisdictions. Finally, based on these two aspects, we seek to set out
(iii) the definitive factors to be considered to ascertain whether an
article ought to be conferred protection under the Copyright Act or the
Designs Act within the confines of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
E.1.1. The current IP statutory framework
9.
IP rights are fundamentally aimed at excluding or preventing others
from possessing, using, or alienating the protected IP, thereby
enabling the owner to benefit from the product of their intellect.
In India, IP rights encompass a broad spectrum of intangible
properties, including Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Designs, and
Geographical Indications, each governed and protected by distinct
Statutes. These legislations enable creators or inventors to earn
recognition and receive financial benefits from their innovations in a
manner which balances them with public interest. However, for the
purposes of the present analysis, our examination will be confined
to the intersection between the Copyright Act and the Designs Act.
10. In India, copyright is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, which was
enacted to safeguard the rights of copyright owners, including for
commercial exploitation and to encourage the creation of innovative
works. Copyright is a statutory and negative right, preventing
unauthorised copying of copyrighted material. Under Section 14 of
the Act, copyright owners are granted a bundle of exclusive rights,
including the right to reproduce, issue copies, perform in public, and
create translations and adaptations.
11. The term 'copyright' has been defined under Section 14 of the
Copyright Act to mean "the exclusive right subject to the provisions
of the Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
779
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely..."
It espouses the protection of works in terms of: (i) literary, dramatic
or musical work, not being a computer programme; (ii) a computer
programme; (iii) an artistic work; (iv) a cinematograph film; and
(v) a sound recording. To put it in more clear terms, the language
employed in the provision reads as follows:
"14. Meaning of Copyright-For the purposes of this
Act, "copyright" means the exclusive right subject to the
provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any
of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial
part thereof, namely:-
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not
being a computer programme,-
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the
storing of it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being
copies already in circulation;
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to
the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording
in respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of
the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work
in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
(b) in the case of a computer programme,-
(i) to do any of the acts specified in Clause (a);
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or
for commercial rental any copy of the computer programme:
Provided that such commercial rental does not apply in
respect of computer programmes where the programme
itself is not the essential object of the rental.
(c) in the case of an artistic work,-
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including-
(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other
means; or
780
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two-dimensional
work; or
(C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three-dimensional work;
(ii) to communicate the work to the public;
(iii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being
copies already in circulation;
(iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film;
(v) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do in relation to adaptation of the work any of the acts
specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv);
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film,-
(i) to make a copy of the film, including- (A) a photograph
of any image forming part thereof; or (B) storing of it in
any medium by electronic or other means;
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or
for such rental, any copy of the film;
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;
(e) in the case of a sound recording,-
(i) to make any other sound recording embodying it
including storing of it in any medium by electronic or other
means;
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or
for such rental, any copy of the sound recording;
(iii) to communicate the sound recording to the public."
12. The enactment of the Designs Act in 2000, established a distinct
protection regime for designs in India. The Designs Act seeks to
minimise overlap with the Copyright Act by defining the term 'design'
under Section 2(d) as "only the features of shape, configuration,
pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied
to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional
or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether
manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which
in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the
eye but does not include any mode or principle of construction
or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device,
and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of
sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks
Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section
479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
781
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others
as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957
(14 of 1957)." This aspect of IP thus focuses on the utility of work,
as well as its visual appeal and aesthetic, making it an important
factor in determining consumer preference or commercial viability.
13. It must be borne in mind that Section 2(d) of the Design Act,
reproduced above, expressly bars the inclusion of 'artistic works'
encapsulated under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. To further
illuminate, the expression 'artistic work' has been defined in the
Copyright Act which reads as follows:
"2. Interpretation.- In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires-
....
(c) "artistic work" means,-
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram,
map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether
or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) a work of architecture; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;"
14. Despite the clear language employed in these provisions, a small
vantage point of intersection exists wherein a 'design' shares
commonalities with 'artistic works' such as paintings or drawings, that
may be accorded copyright protection. This similitude is aptly illustrated
in the Venn Diagram below. We may, however, hasten to caveat that
this is only an illustrative image and is not exhaustive in nature.
782
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
15. This penumbra seems to have been synopsized and, to some extent,
amplified in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. We say so, for the
reason that the provision itself enumerates that "copyright in any
design, which is capable of being registered under the Designs
Act, 2000 but which has not been so registered, shall cease as
soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been
reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the
owner of the copyright or, with his licence, by any other person."
16. We must also bear in mind that Section 15(1) of the Copyright
Act explicitly states that a 'copyright' shall not subsist in a 'design'
protected under the Designs Act. This provision thus establishes
that once a 'design' is registered, any copyright protection ceases
to exist. Whereas, as already recapitulated, Section 15(2) of the
Copyright Act clarifies that any design which is capable of being
registered under the Designs Act, if not registered, then the copyright
protection in such design would terminate once that design is applied
to any article and reproduced in excess of 50 times by an industrial
process, either by the owner or a licensee.
17. The lines perhaps seem blurred owing to the inherent overlap between
copyrightable artistic works and designs. To put it more simply, there
may be some designs that could be entitled to copyright protection,
and conversely, there can be certain artistic works which lose their
copyright protection when industrially applied. This perplexity is
further augmented on account of there being an express interdiction
on designs from seeking any long-term copyright protection.
E.1.2. Parameters adopted across various jurisdictions
18. To resolve this legal conundrum, it is essential to establish clear
parameters distinguishing works eligible for protection under the
Designs Act versus the Copyright Act. In this vein, we turn to
established jurisprudence and comparative legal frameworks, and
have thus examined: (i) the approach adopted by Courts in India;
(ii) the factors employed by courts in the United States of America
(US); and (iii) broader international principles that provide guidance
on the interplay between copyright and design protection.
19. By synthesising these perspectives, we aim to formulate a definitive
test that will provide clarity on the scope of protection afforded under
the respective Statutes.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
783
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.