Published on: 06th March 2026
Authored by: Anushka Singh
Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj
- Appellant: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
- Respondent: Inox India Limited and Others
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Kotiswar Singh
- Citation: 2025 INSC 483
- Judgment Date: 15 April 2025
CASE BACKGROUND / FACTS OF THE CASE
Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and Inox India Ltd. were both engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying industrial and cryogenic equipment. In the course of its business, Cryogas prepared certain technical and engineering drawings for the manufacture of its products and claimed that these drawings were original works requiring specialized technical knowledge and expertise.
The dispute arose when Cryogas claimed that Inox India Ltd. had copied and used drawings substantially similar to its own in the course of manufacturing industrial equipment. Cryogas claimed that this unauthorized use of its drawings constituted copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, as the drawings were “artistic works” within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
Inox India Ltd. denied the claim and submitted that the drawings had been commercially applied in industrial production. The respondent submitted that the drawings were registrable under the Designs Act, 2000, and that by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, the drawings had lost copyright protection upon industrial application.
At the threshold stage, the lower court accepted the respondent’s contention and held that it would not proceed with the copyright claim, mainly on the basis of industrial application of the drawing. Aggrieved by this approach, Cryogas appealed, leading to the matter being placed before the Supreme Court of India.
Prior to Cryogas, courts had relied on earlier judicial precedents to interpret the interaction between copyright and design law. In Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.[1], the Delhi High Court had held that once an artistic work is industrially applied and qualifies as a design, copyright protection would cease under Section 15(2). This decision was frequently cited to support the view that industrial application plays a decisive role in determining the subsistence of copyright. Similarly, courts in other cases involving product drawings and industrial designs had emphasised the need to avoid overlapping protection under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act, often prioritising design law where mass production was involved.
ISSUES
- Whether the technical and engineering drawings used by the appellant for the manufacture of industrial equipment qualify as “artistic works” under the Copyright Act, 1957, or as “designs” registrable under the Designs Act, 2000.
- Whether the industrial application and reproduction of the drawings fall within the ambit of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to lose copyright protection, and whether such a decision can be taken at a preliminary stage of the case
LAW INVOLVED
- Section 2(c), Copyright Act, 1957
“Artistic work” is defined as including drawings, diagrams, and sketches, regardless of their artistic merit. Technical and engineering drawings are also covered under the scope of copyright protection, provided they are original.
- Section 13, Copyright Act, 1957
States the subsistence of copyright in original artistic works. Copyright in drawings automatically vests upon creation, subject to statutory restrictions.
- Section 15(2), Copyright Act, 1957
States that copyright shall lapse in any design liable to be registered under the Designs Act, 2000 if such design is applied to any article by an industrial process more than fifty times. This section seeks to avoid conflict between copyright and design laws.
- Section 2(d), Designs Act, 2000
“Design” is defined as “features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article and judged solely by the eye.”
- Section 4, Designs Act, 2000
It is prohibited to register designs that are not new or original or are determined solely by functional considerations.
ARGUMENTS
- APPELLANT (Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd.)
The plaintiff alleged that the technical and engineering drawings produced by it were original works that required special technical skill, labour, and expertise, and thus fell within the definition of “artistic works” under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff argued that copyright over the drawings subsisted by virtue of their originality and that such copyright was not contingent on the subsequent use of the drawings in industrial manufacture.
The plaintiff argued that the mere industrial application of drawings did not necessarily fall within the scope of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Cryogas argued that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act applied only if the work in question qualified as a “design” under the Designs Act, 2000. The drawings on which the plaintiff relied were argued to be purely technical and functional, intended to represent manufacturing details rather than visual details appealing to the eye. As such, the drawings could not be said to be “designs” under the Designs Act.
Cryogas further argued that the lower court was in error in dismissing the claim for copyright at a preliminary stage without making any factual inquiry into the nature and purpose of the drawings. Whether a work constitutes an artistic work or a design, it was submitted, is a mixed question of law and fact that requires examination of evidence and cannot be decided summarily. On this basis, the plaintiff sought restoration of the copyright infringement claim for adjudication on merits.
- RESPONDENT (Inox India Ltd.)
The defendant argued that the drawings relied upon by the plaintiff were not only conceptual but had been heavily used in the mass production of industrial equipment. Therefore, the drawings were registrable under the Designs Act, 2000, and thus fell outside the ambit of copyright law and within the remit of design protection.
Relying upon Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the defendant argued that when a work capable of design registration is used industrially beyond the prescribed limit, copyright protection automatically ceases by operation of law. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring an action for copyright infringement in respect of the drawings.
The defendant also relied upon the earlier judicial pronouncement in the case of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.[2] to advance the proposition that courts have always been averse to double protection of works under copyright and design law. Thus, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement in the present case was not only not tenable but also contrary to the legislative intent embodied in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The defendant thus justified the decision of the lower court to reject the claim for copyright infringement at the preliminary stage.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s analysis was centred on correcting the mechanical application of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act by the lower court. The Court clarified that industrial application alone cannot determine the cessation of copyright, as technical and engineering drawings are expressly recognised as “artistic works” under the Copyright Act and enjoy protection upon creation.
The Court held that Section 15(2) is a restricted exception to avoid overlapping protection, and not a general provision to be applied in all cases of industrial drawings. The Court held that the provision is attracted only if the work in question is a “design” under the Designs Act, which means that it has to be related to the visual aspects of an article that appeal to the eye and not to the technical specifications. The lower court was wrong in ignoring this aspect and holding that industrial use is sufficient.
To overcome this problem, the Supreme Court has established a two-step test. First, the courts have to determine whether the work in question is an artistic work under copyright law. Second, the courts have to determine whether the same work is, in substance, a design under the Designs Act. Only then will Section 15(2) apply to extinguish copyright.
The Court also held that this is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be determined at a preliminary stage without evidence. By doing so, the Court has ensured that copyright protection is not lost prematurely while still giving effect to the legislative intent behind Section 15(2).
CONCLUSION
The Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. case is a significant milestone in the Indian intellectual property jurisprudence tradition as it helps to establish the way in which courts are required to deal with conflicts arising between copyright and design protection.
The Court has categorically overturned the proposition that industrial application per se is sufficient to destroy the copyright in technical and engineering drawings. Rather, it has held that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act applies only if the work at issue, in substance, qualifies as a “design” under the Designs Act.
This decision sets out a clear and organized framework for courts to apply, mandating that courts scrutinize the nature and object of the work before destroying the copyright protection. In this manner, the Court has achieved a balance between preventing overlapping statutory monopolies and protecting valid creative rights.
[1] 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647
[2] Supra note 1
