Navigating the Copyright-Design Interface: Supreme Court’s Twin Test under Section 15(2)

The overview of the Supreme Court judgment clarifying when copyright protection ends, and design law applies, introducing a clear twin test under Section 15(2) for works used in industrial production.

By Pushpalatha

Introduction: The difference between design law and copyright has usually caused interpretative issues, especially once artistic works find subsequent application in industrial use. Fashion, engineering, and manufacturing industries commonly feature artistic aspects on products that serve functional uses. This then becomes a relevant question of law — should these artistic elements still remain protected under the Copyright Act or should they rather be controlled by the Designs Act?

To tackle this intricacy, the Supreme Court of India in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025 INSC 483) established a systemic and realistic two-step approach. This judicial advancement is important as it brings clarity that stakeholders working on intellectual property development and enforcement have long sought.

Background of the Case: In this case, Inox India Ltd. instituted a lawsuit against Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. claiming unauthorized copying of engineering drawings of cryogenic storage and distribution plant equipment. Inox claimed these drawings were original works of art within the ambit of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The defendants denied the claim on the grounds that the engineering drawings were used for functional and industrial purposes and having been copied in large numbers without registration under the Designs Act, 2000, had lost protection under the Copyright Act under Section 15(2).

Legal Framework: Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act states that where a design, which is registrable under the Designs Act, is used in more than 50 goods by an industrial process and not registered, copyright protection will lapse. The provision aims at preventing creators from seeking double protection under both design law and copyright for the same work.

Copyright law is intrinsically meant to safeguard creative works, while the Designs Act protects the visual aspects of objects for mass production. Section 15(2) aims to prevent overlapping rights that would lead to legal complexity and monopolies at the expense of justice.

Supreme Court’s Two-Pronged Test: In order to elucidate the reach of Section 15(2), the Supreme Court established a two-pronged test that attempts to distinctly distinguish when copyright protection ceases, and design law takes over.

Determination of the Nature of the Work

The initial step is in determining whether the contested work is an independent work of art or one to be used for application in industrial production.

If the work is being employed just for ornamental or artistic reasons and is not used via an industrial process, it will continue to have protection under the copyright law.

If, however, it’s used in industry over and above 50 copies, copyright protection would likely fade away unless the design has been rightfully registered.

The second step deals with evaluating the main function of the work. In the case the dominant function is utilitarian over aesthetic, the work qualifies as a design in terms of the Designs Act.

It prevents copyright law from inadvertently covering functional or mechanical designs, which should be addressed by design law.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for different components of the intellectual property value chain:

For Creators and Designers: It is essential to determine in advance whether a work is likely to be commercially manufactured. If so, seeking protection under the Designs Act is advisable. Relying solely on copyright protection may not be sufficient when works are industrially applied.

For Legal Professionals: The Court’s twin-test offers a reliable legal framework to advise clients on choosing appropriate IP protection mechanisms. Legal professionals need to examine the creative aspect as well as the intended commercial application of works while preparing IP strategies.

For Corporates and Industry Stakeholders: The ruling highlights the necessity of aligning IP strategy with the firm’s product life cycle and production plans. Companies cannot afford to neglect registration under the Designs Act if their products contain artistic aspects for mass production.

For the Judiciary and Policymakers: This ruling gives interpretative clarity which will assist in consistent application of intellectual property law. It also supports the legislative aim of making sure that the scope of copyright and design law are kept separate.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court decision in the case of Cryogas is a milestone in coordinating the relationship between design law and copyright law in India. The Court, with the introduction of a two-tiered approach, has made explicit the application of Section 15(2) and has shed much-needed light on determining the protection status of works that find themselves at the intersection of art and industrial usage. This judgment is an insightful reference point for creators, entrepreneurs, and legal experts who have to deal with the nuances of intellectual property rights protection in an increasingly fast-paced market. It emphasizes the need to adopt a proactive method of IP registration, especially in sectors where innovation tends to blend form and function.