Drafting Credit: Sidratul Muntaha, Research Associate
Image credits: via Freepik
Experts in intellectual property law have long been faced with the challenge of establishing thin line between copyright and design protection. In the past, judicial bodies and the government have offered long-awaited insight into this complex area.
While providing much-needed clarification, judgement of Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Limited, 2025, examined Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which limits copyright protection when a design is registered under the Designs Act, 2000, or when an artistic work is industrially reproduced more than fifty times.1 The Court introduced a two-pronged approach, first, to determine whether the work qualifies as a purely artistic work or has transformed into a design through industrial application and second, to apply the test of functional utility to assess the dominant purpose of the work. This framework aims to avoid any overlapping of protections and distinguish between copyright and design law.2
The first prong concerning the nature of the work requires courts to determine whether a creation is a standalone “artistic work” or an industrial “design”, a distinction that is legally life or death because, under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright protection vanishes the moment an unregistered design is reproduced more than 50 times through an industrial process.3 If the work does not qualify for copyright, the second part of the test, the Functional Utility Test, considers the main purpose of the work. If the features of the work are driven purely by functional necessity rather than visual or aesthetic appeal, it may not qualify as a registrable design under the Designs Act either.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for people involved in the industries which are at the intersection of art and business. By setting out a clear two-part twin test to determine the eligibility of a design, the Court provides a clear way to resolve the long-standing conflict that has arisen from the application of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.4
One of the major implications of procedural aspects is that the Court has now set a very high standard for in limine interference with copyright design claims. The Court found that the determination of whether a work qualifies as a protectable artistic work or a registrable design involves a mix of legal and factual determinations.5 As such, it is now strongly discouraged to dismiss claims at the initial stage.
Therefore, a proactive evaluation of IP enforcement strategies is required for industries such as the automotive, fashion, and industrial equipment. Ultimately, this case reinforces that copyright and design protection are not interchangeable options. They have distinct requirements and thresholds for protection, and the cost for getting this wrong may be total loss of protection.
- Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors., 2025 INSC 483. ↩︎
- Apoorva, Supreme Court resolves complexities of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act with a two-pronged approach for design protection, SCC Online (17 April, 2025) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/17/supreme-court-section-15-2-copyright-act-two-pronged-approach-designs-act/. ↩︎
- The Copyright Act, 1957, §. 15, cl. 2 No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India). ↩︎
- Aditi Rana, Design Vs. Copyright: SC’s Cryogas Judgment Creates Definitive Twin Test, INDIALAW (17 April, 2025). https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/design-copyright-sc-cryogas-twin-test/. ↩︎
- Supra note 1. ↩︎
