CASE BRIEF ON CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PVT LTD V. INOX INDIA PVT LTD AND OTHERS 2025 INSC 483

Inox India Ltd. sued Cryogas Equipment and LNG Express alleging infringement of its artistic works in engineering drawings  and related technical literary works used for manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The defendants sought rejection of the suit, arguing the drawings were unregistered ‘designs’ under the Designs Act and had been reproduced more than fifty times, extinguishing copyright under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court held that such issues require evidence and cannot be dismissed at the threshold, directing the Commercial Court to examine the matter applying the two-pronged test formulated in this case.

INTRODUCTION

Inox India Ltd. sued Cryogas Equipment and LNG Express alleging infringement of its artistic works in engineering drawings  and related technical literary works used for manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The defendants sought rejection of the suit, arguing the drawings were unregistered ‘designs’ under the Designs Act and had been reproduced more than fifty times, extinguishing copyright under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court held that such issues require evidence and cannot be dismissed at the threshold, directing the Commercial Court to examine the matter applying the two-pronged test formulated in this case.

 FACTUAL MATRIX

A dispute arose when Inox India Ltd. filed a trademark and copyright infringement suit against Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. Inox claimed that the defendants had unlawfully used two categories of its copyrighted material:

1. Proprietary Engineering Drawings of LNG semi-trailers, developed by Inox and

2. Literary Works consisting of processes, descriptions, and technical narratives created by Inox’s employees.

These works were allegedly developed specifically for manufacturing LNG semi-trailers suited to Indian conditions. Inox sought several reliefs, including: A declaration of infringement, Permanent injunctions preventing use or reproduction of its drawings, IP, or know-how Destruction of all infringing materials, and 2 crore damages. Inox also applied for an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1–2 CPC.

 In response, LNG Express filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the suit. It argued that the engineering drawings were actually “designs” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, and since they were not registered , Inox lost copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 . LNG Express contended that Inox had reproduced the drawings more than 50 times through industrial production of semi-trailers. Therefore, copyright protection was barred, making the suit not maintainable at the threshold.

ISSUES

i. What are the parameters for determining whether a work or an article falls within the limitation set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, thereby classifying it as a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act?

ii. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Commercial Court and thus rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC?

RELEVANT LEGAL PROISION

A.     The Copyright Act, 1957

 SEC 15. Special provision regarding Copyright in designs registered or capable of being registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)].—

 (1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)].

(2) Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)] but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his licence, by any other person.

B.      The Design Act, 2000.

SEC 2  (d) “design” means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957).

      JUDGEMENT

The court laid down two-pronged test to deal with the overlap between copyright and design act. It further upheld the decision of High court rejecting the application under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In light of relevant precedents and legal positions, and the clear test outlined court direct the Commercial Court to consider the issue afresh and conduct trial by adopting an Occam’s Razor approach.

TWO – PRONGED TEST

i)             whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the Copyright Act or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. ( Determination Test)

ii)             if such a work does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of ‘functional utility’ will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant purpose, and then ascertain whether it would qualify for design protection under the Design Act. (Functionality Test)

RATIONALE

The court emphasized that  legislative intent is to harmonise the two Statutes ( copyright Act & Design Act) so that while an ‘artistic work’ qualifies for copyright protection, its commercial or industrial application—i.e., the ‘design’ derived from the original work for industrial production is subject to the limitations set out in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Such a design gets protected only if it is registered under the Designs Act.

CONCLUSION

The dispute between Inox India Ltd. and Cryogas/LNG Express raised a critical question at the intersection of copyright and design law—specifically, whether engineering drawings used for industrially manufactured LNG semi-trailers are protected as “artistic works” under the Copyright Act or fall within the purview of “designs” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. The defendants invoked Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, arguing that the drawings had been reproduced more than fifty times through industrial processes, thereby extinguishing copyright protection. Relying on this, they sought rejection of the plain.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach and upheld the High Court’s decision restoring the suit. It held that the question of whether Inox’s engineering drawings constitute artistic works or industrial designs cannot be determined at the threshold, as it involves mixed questions of fact and law. The Court clarified that such issues require evidence, technical scrutiny, and full trial, especially when the plaintiff also asserts infringement of literary works, processes, and technical narratives that do not fall within the Designs Act. Since Order VII Rule 11 does not permit partial rejection of a plaint, the entire suit must proceed. To resolve similar conflicts going forward, the Court formulated a two-pronged test.

 The judgment reinforces that the Copyright Act and Designs Act must operate harmoniously copyright protects artistic creativity, while the Designs Act governs industrial application . In adopting this balanced, “Occam’s Razor” approach, the Court ensured that neither statute is misused to monopolise functional industrial products. The Commercial Court was therefore rightly directed to adjudicate the dispute  applying  the test laid down in this case.