Cryogas Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Inox India Limited & Ors.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section Order VII Rule 11

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 14(c)Section 15(2)Section 2(c)

Designs Act, 2000

Section 2(d)

Provisions considered: Sections 2(c), 14(c) and 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000.

Brief facts

Inox India sued Cryogas and another company for infringing its copyright in proprietary engineering drawings and literary works used to manufacture cryogenic semi-trailers for transporting industrial gases. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the drawings were a design capable of registration under the Designs Act and had lost copyright protection under Section 15(2) once the trailers were industrially reproduced more than fifty times. After conflicting orders across two rounds of litigation, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues before the Court

1. What are the parameters for determining whether a work is a design under the Designs Act, so that copyright in it is lost under Section 15(2) once industrially reproduced beyond fifty units?
2. Can that determination be made summarily on an application under Order VII Rule 11, or does it require a full trial?

Court's findings

The Court held that whether an article is a design capable of registration under the Designs Act, attracting the bar in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, must be assessed using a functional utility test drawn from comparative jurisprudence: protection under the Designs Act is confined to features that appeal to the eye, whereas features dictated solely by function remain eligible for copyright protection as artistic works, subject to Section 15(2) where applicable.

The Court held that this determination is a mixed question of law and fact that ordinarily cannot be conclusively resolved on an application under Order VII Rule 11, since it requires evidence on whether the drawings possessed the requisite eye-appeal or were purely functional, and on the extent of industrial reproduction.

The Court upheld the rejection of the Order VII Rule 11 application and directed the Commercial Court to decide the pending interim injunction application and to assess separately the claims relating to literary works and confidential information.

Decision

Appeals dismissed; the rejection of the Order VII Rule 11 application was upheld and the Commercial Court directed to decide the pending interim injunction application expeditiously.

Keywords

Artistic Work Copyright Design Overlap Functionality Industrial Reproduction Scope Of Design Protection