Artistic Work: Copyright or Design? The Apex Court’s Two-Pronged Test Decoded

In view of the differing interpretations arising from the overlap between copyrightable artistic works and industrial designs, the Supreme Court has formulated a two-pronged approach to distinguish works eligible for protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, versus the Designs Act, 2000.[1]

This overlap, particularly in the case of paintings, sculptures or drawings, results in ambiguity, further complicated by the express prohibition on designs from seeking any long-term copyright protection.

Cryogas and LNG Express v. Inox: Facts in Brief

The dispute in this case pertains to the alleged infringement of Inox India Limited’s (Inox) copyright in artistic works (specifically Proprietary Engineering Drawings of semi-trailers) and literary work (including details, processes, and descriptions), as well as theft of confidential information. Inox filed a suit in 2018 seeking a permanent injunction restraining Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (Cryogas) and LNG Express India Private Limited (LNG Express) from using or reproducing any drawings or works similar to its Proprietary Engineering Drawings or literary works or from using any intellectual property or know-how associated with manufacturing the impugned products. Inox also sought damages and an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.

In response, LNG Express filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking dismissal of the plaint. It contended that Inox’s drawings fell within the definition of a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. According to LNG Express, the suit was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act; since the drawings were capable of registration under the Designs Act but had not been registered, copyright in the design ceased as soon as it was utilised to manufacture semi-trailers more than 50 times through an industrial process.

In 2022, the Commercial Court allowed this application, rejecting Inox’s plaint and interim injunction application. The Gujarat High Court later set aside this order and remanded the matter. However, the Commercial Court again allowed LNG Express’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, rejecting the plaint and dismissing Inox’s application for an ad interim injunction. The High Court set aside these separate orders, restoring both the suit and the interim injunction application. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court

• Two-Pronged Test: The Supreme Court laid down a two-pronged approach to resolve the conundrum under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, to ascertain whether a work qualifies for design protection:
• • Artistic Work or Design Derived from such Work? The expression ‘artistic work’ under copyright law has a broad connotation and can be reproduced in any material form. However, if such reproduction is done through an industrial process, resulting in a finished article that may appeal to the eye, then the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to that article by such an industrial process would constitute a ‘design’.

In such cases, while the original artistic work may continue to be protected under copyright law, any design derived from it for industrial production would be subject to the limitations set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and would be protected only if it is registered under the Designs Act.

In light of the above, it has to be determined as to whether the work in question is a) purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under copyright law, or b) a ‘design’ derived from such work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

• • Functional Utility Test: Where a work does not qualify for copyright protection, the ‘functional utility’ test must be applied to determine its dominant purpose and assess whether it may be eligible for protection under the Designs Act.

If the work’s primary characteristic is its functional utility rather than aesthetic appeal, it cannot be protected as a design. This principle is also reflected under provisions of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995 (TRIPS).

Notably, this test does not have a direct nexus with Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act but appears to have been added to underscore that works that do not qualify as artistic works under the Copyright Act would not automatically receive protection under the Designs Act.

It is made clear that the courts must undertake a case-specific inquiry guided by statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and comparative jurisprudence. The overarching objective is to ensure that rights granted under either regime serve their intended purpose without unduly encroaching upon the domain of the other.

• Findings Concerning Present Appeals: The Supreme Court concurred with the Gujarat High Court’s view that the issue involves a mixed question of law and fact requiring a full trial. Consequently, the Gujarat High Court’s decision was upheld, with directions to the Commercial Court to decide Inox’s interim injunction application within two months and to conduct a trial and discern the true nature of the Proprietary Engineering Drawings based upon the two-pronged test, as well as the other related IP right infringements claimed by Inox, within one year.

[1] Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5174/2025) and LNG Express India Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5175/2025).