Published On: July 30, 2026
Authored By: Divya Soni
Jaipur National University
I. Introduction
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 restricts copyright protection for works capable of design registration once industrially reproduced. The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors (2025 INSC 483) establishes a structured analytical framework for distinguishing copyright-eligible artistic works from unprotectable industrial designs.[1] This case comment examines the Court’s two-pronged test and its implications for copyright holders and design manufacturers.
II. Facts of the Case
Inox India Limited filed a copyright infringement suit against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and LNG Express India Private Limited alleging unauthorized reproduction of: (i) Proprietary Engineering Drawings for LNG Semi-trailers; and (ii) Literary Works comprising technical descriptions and manufacturing processes.[2] Inox claimed its engineers developed these works to meet technical requirements for storing and transporting LNG in semi-trailers suitable for Indian roads. Inox sought declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, and damages of Rs. 2 Crores.
The Commercial Court dismissed Inox’s plaint, accepting the defendants’ preliminary objection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the disputed drawings constituted “designs” under the Designs Act, 2000, and that copyright protection had ceased under Section 15(2).[3] The Gujarat High Court reversed this on 13 March 2024, ruling that such complex IP disputes required full adjudication rather than summary dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
III. Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court formulated two principal issues:
Issue 1: What parameters determine whether a work falls within Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
Issue 2: Can copyright-design disputes involving industrial applications be resolved through preliminary rejection, or do they require full factual adjudication?
Section 15(2) provides that copyright in any design capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, but which has not been so registered, ceases once an article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced by an industrial process more than fifty times.[4]
IV. Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Contentions
The appellants argued that Section 15(2) statutorily barred Inox’s suit.[5] The Engineering Drawings, they submitted, constituted “designs” under the Designs Act — functional specifications intended for industrial reproduction. Inox’s revenue of Rs. 122 Crores, it was argued, necessarily implied reproduction exceeding fifty units, so that copyright protection had automatically terminated under Section 15(2).
Respondent’s Contentions
Inox contended that the Engineering Drawings and Literary Works required independent assessment.[6] The drawings, it argued, constituted “artistic work” under Section 2(c) — original technical expressions embodying creative choices beyond mere functional specification — and that Section 15(2) applied only where works were actually registrable designs.
V. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
Justice Surya Kant, writing for the bench (with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh), rejected the appellants’ automatic categorization, holding that Section 15(2) could not operate without a prior determination of whether the work constituted a registrable design.[7]
The Court articulated a two-pronged analytical test:
First Prong: Determine whether the work constitutes a pure “artistic work” deserving copyright protection or represents a “design” derived from artistic work and subjected to industrial processes.
Second Prong: Apply the functional utility test to ascertain whether the article’s primary purpose is functional or whether aesthetic considerations predominate.
The Court rejected the presumption that industrial reproduction exceeding fifty units automatically extinguishes copyright. The distinction between a work being “capable of being registered” and its actual functional-design character was held to be determinative, and preliminary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 was found inappropriate, since such disputes require factual adjudication. The Supreme Court accordingly upheld the Gujarat High Court’s order and remanded the matter for trial on the merits.
VI. Critical Analysis
Strengths: The judgment represents a principled advancement in Indian IP jurisprudence. By adopting a two-pronged test that draws on comparative law — particularly English jurisprudence under the Registered Designs Act, 1949 — the Court provided structured guidance for lower courts.[8] The functional utility test receives welcome judicial endorsement.
The judgment recognizes that modern industrial creativity blurs traditional boundaries between artistic expression and functional engineering. The Court’s insistence on case-by-case analysis respects this complexity. By restricting the preliminary dismissal of copyright suits, the Court has procedurally protected copyright claimants — an approach that builds on the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT, which had similarly resisted a mechanical application of Section 15(2).[9]
Practical Application: Consider an automotive component designer creating decorative engine covers embodying both functional heat management and aesthetic ornamentation. Under Cryogas, courts must examine: (1) whether the covers constitute pure artistic works (favoring copyright) or functional designs (favoring design registration); and (2) whether aesthetic considerations predominate over functional necessity. If the designer proves the ornamentation is severable from function, copyright protection survives despite industrial reproduction exceeding fifty units.
Concerns: The two-pronged test introduces interpretative flexibility that may generate fresh litigation.[10] Lower courts may struggle to apply the functional utility test consistently, particularly in industries where aesthetic and functional considerations intertwine. The judgment also leaves unclear whether different protection regimes should apply to different components within a single technical work.
Impact: The judgment substantially strengthens copyright claimants in industrialized sectors. Manufacturers can no longer presume that industrial reproduction automatically divests copyright; they must affirmatively establish design-registration eligibility. Design registrants may pursue dual protection — obtaining design registration while separately claiming copyright.
VII. Significance for Indian IP Jurisprudence
Cryogas clarifies an interpretative ambiguity that has persisted since the Copyright Act’s 1957 enactment and the Designs Act’s 2000 modernization. By establishing that Section 15(2)’s operation depends on a prior characterization of whether a work actually constitutes a registrable design, the judgment prevents premature foreclosure of copyright claims.
For future litigation, the judgment establishes that copyright-design disputes are suited to adjudication on the merits rather than summary dismissal. Lower courts should operationalize the two-pronged test by: (1) examining whether the work embodies characteristics conferring copyright eligibility independent of industrial application; and (2) conducting a functional utility analysis comparing aesthetic against functional design purposes.[11] This is likely to increase the number of complex IP cases requiring extensive factual evidence, and may accelerate industry-specific guidance as courts apply this framework across manufacturing sectors.
The judgment also signals the Supreme Court’s receptiveness to comparative IP jurisprudence, particularly English and American approaches, which may encourage greater reliance on foreign precedent in resolving novel domestic IP questions.
VIII. Conclusion
Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. represents a watershed moment in Indian intellectual property law. By rejecting automatic categorization and establishing a structured two-pronged test, the Supreme Court has provided coherent guidance for distinguishing copyright-protected artistic works from functionally designed industrial products. The judgment appropriately recognizes that modern industrial creativity often embodies both aesthetic expression and functional specification.
Ultimately, Cryogas advances Indian IP jurisprudence by treating overlapping protection regimes not as competing claims but as complementary frameworks requiring nuanced, context-sensitive analysis.
References
[1] Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors, 2025 INSC 483 (15 April 2025, Supreme Court of India).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid; Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (India), Order VII Rule 11.
[4] Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 15(2).
[5] Cryogas (n 1), Appellants’ submissions.
[6] Cryogas (n 1), Respondent’s submissions.
[7] Cryogas (n 1).
[8] Riya Rathore, ‘Copyright v. Design Protection: Supreme Court Formulates Two-Pronged Approach to Address the Conundrum by Section 15(2) Copyright Act’ Verdictum (15 April 2025).
[9] Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Aarya 24 kt & Ors., 2015(4) ALL MR 237 (Bombay High Court, 1 April 2015).
[10] Aditya Bhargava, ‘[Part I] Cryogas Judgment: Supreme Court Stops Copyright from “Gaslighting” Design’ SpicyIP (18 April 2025).
[11] Kalyan Kankanala, ‘Copyright v. Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests’ BananaIP (16 April 2025).
