Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Copyright Act 2(c); Designs Act 2(d)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Boundary between artistic copyright and industrial design protection: The reported Supreme Court judgment provides a framework for distinguishing artistic works protected by copyright from features embodied through an industrial process that fall within design-law protection.

Material facts and background

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.

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 Page 3 of 56

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’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (Designs Act). It...

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

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

25. The High Court in this context further enunciated as follows: “44. No doubt, the plaintiff has tried to argue that for creating the same designs, the defendant would have applied the technique of ‘reverse engineering’ inasmuch as striking resemblance to the Tupperware Products could have been achieved by the defendants by circumventing the tedious and lengthy process used for manufacture of the Tupperware Products by using computer techniques possibly by 2D or 3D scanning. This is a matter which would require evidence. May be on the basis of evidence led ultimately plaintiff is successful in showing that there is a copyright in the product drawings and the defendants have copied the said drawings thereby violating the copyright rights in creating their own products striking similar to the Tupperware Products. However, prima facie, it seems that once the drawings are made for creating the ultimate product design, the copyright in the said drawings cannot be claimed under the Copyright Act. May be this is the reason that Section 15 of the Copyright Act provides that once a design is registered under the Designs Act, copyright therein shall not subsist. Such a copyright in any...

instant case, the drawing may qualify as an original work entitled to copyright protection and, at the same time, a registered design for the shape of the article would be protected under the Designs Act. If an unauthorised copy is made of the article, it may constitute an indirect copy of the drawing and therefore may infringe the copyright.”

27. Meanwhile, Microfibres I (supra), which was being relied on in several such decisions, was appealed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide Microfibres Inc v. Girdhar and Co,5 contending that the subject works qualified as original ‘artistic works’ within Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and that no artificial distinction between works which are pure artistic works and those which are not could be drawn. In particular, the appellant questioned the finding of the Single Judge that the artistic work in question did not have the ability to stand by itself as a piece of art and had no independent existence. 28. The Division Bench of the High Court, having considered these contentions, dismissed the appeal and summarised its conclusions as follows: “46. We thus summarise our findings as follows:— a. The definition of ‘artistic work’ has a very wide connotation as it is not circumscribed by any limitation of the work possessing any artistic quality. Even an abstract work, such as a few lines or curves arbitrarily drawn would qualify as an artistic work. It may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional. The artistic work may or may not have visual appeal. b. The rights to...

d. The design protection in case of registered works under the Designs Act cannot be extended to include the copyright protection to the works which were industrially produced. e. A perusal of the Copyright Act and the Designs Act and indeed the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Designs Act makes it clear that the legislative intent was to grant a higher protection to pure original artistic works such as paintings, sculptures etc and lesser protection to design activity which is commercial in nature. The legislative intent is, thus, clear that the protection accorded to a work which is commercial in nature is lesser than and not to be equated with the protection granted to a work of pure art. f. The original paintings/artistic works which may be used to industrially produce the designed article would continue to fall within the meaning of the artistic work defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and would be entitled to the full period of copyright protection as evident from the definition of the design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. However, the intention of producing the artistic work is not relevant. g. This is precisely why the...

Operative decision and relief

Drawings based upon the test laid down in paragraph 60 of this judgement, as also the other related IP right infringements claimed by Inox, within a period of one year, given that it has already wasted significant judicial time on this issue. 71. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the above terms.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Delhi High Court in Microfibres Inc v. Girdhar
• Inc and another v. Techno Plast and others
• Warner Brothers v. Roadrunner
• Inc v. Jayant Agarwalla
• Delhi High Court vide Microfibres Inc v. Girdhar and Co
• Court in Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT
• Kerala High Court in Fun World and Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Nimil KK.7
• Court in Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass
• House of Lords in Amp v. Utilux
• Interlego A.G v. Tyco
• Smithkline Beecham Plc. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd
• Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Standard Combines

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Boundary between artistic copyright and industrial design protection. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Boundary between artistic copyright and industrial design protection. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF

Related Finin2min guidance