The legal intersection of copyright, industrial design and confidentiality of proprietary confidential information has long posed a challenge in the Indian IP landscape. While the Copyright Act, 1957, safeguards original literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works, the Designs Act, 2000, offers protection to features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours that can be applied to articles and appeal to the eye.
However, a crucial limitation under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act bars copyright protection if the work qualifies as a ‘design’, has been applied to more than 50 articles, and remains unregistered under the Designs Act. This overlap creates a challenge for technical drawings and proprietary engineering designs used in manufacturing. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in SLP Civil No. 28062/2024 & 28017/2024 dated April 15, 2025, laid down a two-pronged test to determine whether such a work qualifies for protection under the Copyright Act or the Designs Act.
First, whether the work is a pure ‘artistic work’ entitled to copyright protection or a ‘design’ derived from such original ‘artistic work’ and that has undergone industrial application must be ascertained. Second, if it does not qualify for copyright, then the test of ‘functional utility’ must be applied to determine whether the work qualifies as ‘design for protection under the Designs Act.
The case of Inox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and Others presented a classic scenario for applying this test, thereby providing legal clarity on the overlap between artistic work, design, and engineering know-how.
In this case, the plaintiff, Inox India Private Limited, approached the Vadodara Commercial Court seeking a declaration that the defendants had infringed their copyright in proprietary engineering drawings and literary works, used confidential information, thereby violating its IP rights. Inox India, a key player in manufacturing Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems, claimed that its proprietary engineering drawings and accompanying literary content constituted original artistic and literary works under Section 2(c) and Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act.
These works resulted from years of research, investment, and technical development, further bolstered by a 2009 acquisition of Cryogenic Vessel Alternatives (CVA), a US-based company from which they purchased technology, know-how, drawings and intellectual property. Further, in 2012, the plaintiff developed various drawings for its LNG Semi-trailers, and such proprietary engineering drawings constituted original ‘artistic work’ as per Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. These engineering drawings contained details, processes, descriptions and narrations, providing copyright to the plaintiff in such ‘literary work’.
The plaintiff also argued that in 2018, it identified the defendants’ business of manufacturing and selling Cryogenic Semi-trailers through its website www.lngexpress.in. It was further found that Defendant No. 1 applied for PESO approval by submitting drawings for the proposed manufacturing of an LNG Semi-trailer that were identical/substantially similar to the proprietary engineering drawings of the plaintiff, with the same spelling mistakes in its literary work.
.
The defendants, Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd., contested this by arguing that the engineering drawings were generic and based on Standard International Codes applicable to the engineering and scientific principles in manufacturing the cryogenic tanks/cryogenic semi-trailers, LNG semi-trailers. Furthermore, they challenged Inox’s copyright claim under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, arguing that the drawings had been industrially applied to over 50 units of semi-trailer trucks, thereby rendering them ineligible for copyright protection without design registration. They also denied that the proprietary engineering drawings for which the plaintiff claimed copyright fell into the category of ‘artistic work’ as per Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act.
Notably, two of the defendants were former employees of Inox who had subsequently joined Cryogas and LNG Express. Inox alleged that these former employees had breached confidentiality clauses by sharing proprietary information, including technical drawings and know-how. Supporting this, a court-appointed Commissioner reported that identical spelling errors and sentence structures were found in the defendants’ drawings, reinforcing the plaintiff’s claims of copying and unauthorised use. Regarding the availability of proprietary engineering drawings, designs, know-how and other parameters in manufacturing Cryogenic and LNG Semi-trailers in the public domain, the plaintiff contested that mere availability of such information could not permit manufacturing of such trailers without application of mind.
The court was thus required to adjudicate an application seeking interim relief against the defendants. Firstly, jurisdictional challenges raised by the defendants were dismissed. The Court held that under Order II Rule 3 of the CPC, a composite suit for infringement of copyright and breach of confidentiality was maintainable. It clarified that the suit did not merely seek copyright protection but was also based on the unauthorised use of confidential technical know-how, making the suit maintainable even without registration under the Designs Act.
The issue of breach of confidence was also held to have substantial weight. The court referred to the employment contracts and undertakings signed by the former employees, which explicitly barred them from disclosing confidential information. Evidence from the Commissioner’s Report and employment timelines established a proximity between the employees’ resignations and the submission of drawings for PESO approval by Cryogas. The court found this indicative of a breach of contractual and fiduciary duties.
The Court also considered whether these artistic works had been subjected to industrial application and whether that application stripped them of copyright protection. Here, the court drew a vital distinction, holding that cryogenic semi-trailers and LNG storage units lacked any aesthetic or visual appeal and were instead developed for pure functional utility. As such, the drawings could not be deemed ‘designs’ under the Designs Act. Therefore, the court ruled that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act did not apply.
Central to the court’s consideration was the applicability of the Copyright Act vs the Designs Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s two-pronged test, the court first determined whether the engineering drawings constituted ‘artistic work’. Under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, ‘artistic work’ includes drawings and diagrams. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s drawings were not simply visual representations of an object but contained intricate descriptions, tables, and annotations, qualifying them simultaneously as literary works under Section 2(o).
On the issue of originality and whether the plaintiff’s works were in the public domain, the court found the defendants’ arguments unconvincing. Despite the defendants’ claim of having created their own drawings using international codes and a US-based consultant, the overwhelming similarity between the two sets of drawings, including identical spelling mistakes, indicated direct copying. The defendants could not provide plausible explanations for these similarities, nor did they submit preliminary evidence demonstrating that their designs were independently created.
In conclusion, the court granted an interim injunction in favour of Inox India, restraining the defendants from using or reproducing the proprietary engineering drawings, technical know-how, and confidential information until the final disposal of the suit. The court held that Inox had demonstrated a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience clearly lay in its favour. It was opined that without interim relief, Inox would suffer irreparable harm due to the unauthorised exploitation of its intellectual property.
The Court’s decision offers crucial judicial guidance on the overlap of copyright and design protection, particularly in engineering and industrial domains. It reinforces that not all technical drawings used in manufacturing lose their copyright status by default and that confidential information, even if related to public standards, qualifies for protection when obtained through original and laborious efforts.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta
First Published by: Mondaq here