In a decision that could reshape the way copyright and design laws interact in India; the Supreme Court sets a precedence in the case of Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd[1]. The Court drew a clear line around the extent of copyright protection for industrial designs, especially those that are mass-produced, under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. By doing so, it underscored the vital role of registering designs under the Designs Act, 2000. This ruling serves as a timely reminder that copyright law should not be used as a tool to unfair competition in the market.
Dispute
The dispute centres between two cryogenic equipment manufacturers i.e Inox India Ltd. (the plaintiff) and Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (the defendant). Inox claimed that Cryogas had unlawfully copied its engineering drawings for LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) semi-trailers, thereby infringing its copyright.
Inox argued that its engineering drawings and technical specifications were original artistic works protected under the Copyright Act, and it sought injunctive relief to restrain Cryogas from producing similar LNG trailers.
In response, Cryogas categorically denied the allegations. It maintained that its designs were independently developed based on publicly available technical codes and established engineering standards. Cryogas further contended that the lawsuit was not about protecting original work, but rather a strategic attempt by Inox to suppress competition in a market it had traditionally dominated.
This case brought light to the grey area of originality, the scope of protection in industrial design, and the need to balance such rights with the principles of open and fair competition in the marketplace.
Section 15(2): The Design-Copyright Overlap
The question was whether Inox’s engineering drawings for the LNG semi-trailers, despite being “artistic works” — could enjoy copyright protection after being applied to more than 50 industrially manufactured products?
Section 15(2)[2] of the Copyright Act provides:
“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.”
This provision places a limit on copyright protection once a design enters mass production, with the intent of preventing indefinite monopolies through unregistered designs.
Thus, the section introduces a two-pronged test to determine when copyright in a design ceases:
- The design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000.
- The design has been applied to more than fifty industrial products.
The Court found that both prongs were satisfied in this case.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that Inox’s engineering drawings though artistic in nature were functionally applied to a tangible product and were therefore capable of registration under the Designs Act. Since Inox had already manufactured more than 50 LNG semi-trailers using these designs, it lost the statutory protection of copyright under Section 15(2).
Further, the Court noted the following:
- No evidence of copying was established by the court commissioner appointed to investigate Cryogas’s facilities.
- Inox failed to register its designs under the Designs Act despite commercial use, undermining its legal claim.
- There was a risk that copyright law would be misused as a tool to monopolize functional industrial designs without undergoing the scrutiny of registration under the Designs Act.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant the injunctive relief sought by Inox.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling is significant on multiple fronts:
- Clarification of Section 15(2): The judgment offers a much-needed judicial exposition of the two-pronged test under Section 15(2), making it clear that copyright protection ends where industrial application and mass production begin.
- Design Registration is Crucial: Companies must not rely on copyright as a fallback for protecting industrial designs. The Designs Act is the appropriate regime for such protection, which offers more structured scrutiny and safeguards against functional monopolies.
- Guarding Against Anti-Competitive Behaviours: The ruling sends a clear message that IP litigation should not be used to unfairly target market entrants or stifle competition without substantiated claims of infringement.
- Shift Toward IP Compliance: For businesses in the manufacturing and engineering sectors, this is a timely reminder to audit their IP assets and ensure that industrial designs are registered appropriately if long-term protection is sought.
Conclusion
The decision in Cryogas v. Inox sets a precedent in distinguishing the domains of copyright and design law in India. It underscores the judiciary’s growing sensitivity to the commercial realities of industrial design use and the need for legal precision in choosing the right form of IP protection. As India’s innovation economy grows, this ruling will shape how companies think about IP strategy and compliance in industrial design.
[1] [2025 INSC 483]
Author: Vidhi Agrawal, Associate at Dentons Link Legal
