Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited

CASE DETAILS

Name of the case: Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited

Citation: 2025 INSC 483

Court: Supreme Court of India [Division Bench (2 judges)]

Date Decided: April 15, 2025

INTRODUCTION

The Honourable Supreme Court of India clarified the interplay between copyright law and design law under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, through its decision in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025 INSC 483).² The interplay concerned artistic works that also have the potential of being subject to industrial design protection. The matter arose from allegations that proprietary engineering drawings relating to cryogenic semi-trailers were infringed under copyright protection, which raised the central question of whether such works fall within the Copyright Act, 1957 or the Designs Act, 2000. The Court not only upheld the distinction between artistic work and design but also formulated a structured, two-pronged analytical approach that was much-needed for clarity and for resolving such disputes in future.³

FACTS OF THE CASE

The matter initiated with Inox India Ltd. filing a suit of copyright infringement and praying for an interim injunction against Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express before the Fourth Additional District Court (Commercial), Gujarat, alleging that Cryogas Equipment had used its proprietary engineering drawings and related intellectual property employed in the design and manufacture of LNG semi-trailers without permission. Inox contended that these intellectual property assets were developed to meet special requirements for storing and transporting LNG on Indian roads. The Commercial Court dismissed both the application and the plaint, accepting the defendants’ objections that the drawings were designs under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 and were not registered under that Act — thus, they had lost copyright protection — and that the same had been reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process, bringing them within the ambit of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.⁴

The above orders were set aside by the Gujarat High Court, which granted the prayer for injunction and remanded the matter to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration, restoring the suit to its original number and directing it to adjudicate the pending applications concurrently while issuing separate orders for each.⁵ The Commercial Court, following the directions of the High Court, rejected Inox’s plaint and dismissed its interim injunction plea. These orders were challenged again by Inox before the High Court, which set aside the orders of the Commercial Court on the ground that it had wrongly presumed the drawings to be designs, and restored the suit. Consequently, the aggrieved parties — Cryogas and LNG Express (collectively, the Appellants) — filed the present appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court against Inox India Limited (the Respondent).⁶

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the proprietary engineering drawings and related materials constituted designs under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, or remained protected as original works under the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Whether copyright in the drawings had ceased due to their alleged industrial reproduction beyond fifty articles without design registration.
3. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

Appellant

The Appellants contended that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as rightfully held by the Commercial Court in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908. They further argued that the proprietary engineering drawings relied upon were designs within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, since they were applied to the manufacture of LNG semi-trailers. They relied on the precedent Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. to support their contention that once designs are industrially reproduced more than fifty times without registration under the Designs Act, 2000, copyright protection will automatically cease.⁷ The Appellants also maintained that the High Court erred in treating the issue as requiring a trial and that the plaint disclosed a clear statutory bar warranting rejection at the threshold.

Respondent

The Respondent contended that its proprietary engineering drawings and accompanying written materials were original artistic and literary works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and that they do not fall within the definition of “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. They also argued that Section 15(2) was inapplicable because the drawings themselves were not applied as registrable designs but were technical documents used in the manufacturing process. Inox India Ltd. maintained that the reliance on alleged industrial reproduction was misplaced and that the determination of whether the works qualified as designs involved disputed questions of fact requiring a full trial.

COURT REASONING

Through a structured examination, the Honourable Supreme Court analysed the interplay between Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. It was observed that the central inquiry was not merely whether the drawings had been industrially applied, but whether they were, in substance, designs capable of registration under the Designs Act.

In line with the above, the Court formulated a two-pronged analytical approach to determine whether a work attracts copyright or design protection.⁸ The first prong examines functional utility — that is, the nature and purpose of the work — to determine whether it qualifies as a design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, which protects features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition applied to an article.⁹ This prong distinguishes between artistic or technical drawings as original works, on the one hand, and the application of design features to a finished product, on the other. The Court emphasised that technical engineering drawings may remain protected as artistic works unless they are primarily created for registration purposes.

The second prong addresses the question of industrial application: the Supreme Court considered whether alleged industrial reproduction beyond fifty articles automatically extinguishes copyright. The Court held that Section 15(2) applies only when the work is both capable of design registration and has been industrially applied in the manner contemplated by the statute. The Court therefore stated that this determination involved mixed questions of fact and law and could not be conclusively decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.¹⁰

The Supreme Court rejected the argument for a mechanical application of Section 15(2) and cautioned against prematurely denying copyright protection. The Court balanced the legislative intent behind preventing dual protection with the need to safeguard genuine artistic and technical works.

JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Accordingly, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express and affirmed the High Court’s decision setting aside the Commercial Court’s rejection of the plaint. It held that the Commercial Court had erred in summarily concluding that Inox’s proprietary drawings were designs excluded from copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was ruled that the nature of the works, their capability for design registration, and the question of industrial application involved mixed questions of fact and law that could not be decided at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Consequently, the suit and the interim injunction application were restored for adjudication on their merits.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in a work ceases only when a two-pronged test is satisfied:

1. The work must be capable of registration as a design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000; and
2. The design must have been applied to articles and reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process.

Furthermore, the status of technical or engineering drawings depends on their purpose and the surrounding factual context. Where the applicability of Section 15(2) raises disputed or mixed questions of law and fact, rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is impermissible, and the matter must proceed to trial.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment v. Inox India is significant because it clarifies the uneasy interplay between copyright and design protection in India and addresses a gap that had been affecting the intellectual property landscape in the country.¹¹ The articulation of the two-pronged test under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides much-needed doctrinal guidance in an area historically marked by inconsistent lower court approaches. It establishes a principled procedure for determining whether a work qualifies as a design and is a welcome corrective to earlier tendencies towards mechanical exclusion.

On the refusal to permit rejection of the plaint at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court appropriately preserves procedural justice, since the technical nature of engineering drawings often depends on evidence regarding purpose, functionality, and industrial application.¹² The judgment therefore follows principles of natural justice by treating these as mixed questions of fact and law requiring adjudication on their merits. However, on this point, remanding the case to the Commercial Court for trial — while simultaneously maintaining an injunction — risks delaying the substantive resolution of the dispute. Any eventual trial court decision will be susceptible to fresh rounds of appeals, thereby prolonging uncertainty for all parties.

On the other hand, the judgment leaves certain ambiguities. The ruling strikes a cautious balance between preventing dual monopolies and protecting genuine technical creativity, but the restoration of the suit prioritises procedural correctness over substantive certainty. Despite its utility, the dominant purpose inquiry generates evidentiary uncertainty and may prolong litigation.¹³ Manufacturers may still face strategic unpredictability when deciding whether to seek design registration or rely on copyright protection.

Moreover, the Court did not rule on whether the drawings had, in fact, been reproduced more than fifty times — a question that could significantly affect the outcome but was left for the Commercial Court to determine. Overall, the judgment is doctrinally sound and commercially sensitive, but its full impact will depend on how lower courts operationalise the two-pronged test in future design-copyright disputes.

CONCLUSION

The Honourable Supreme Court of India provides significant clarification of the delicate boundary between copyright and design protection in India in the case of Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. The Court made clear that copyright does not automatically extinguish merely because a work has been industrially applied, by formulating a structured two-pronged test under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Instead, courts must first determine whether the work is capable of registration as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, and whether it has been industrially reproduced beyond fifty articles. The Court emphasised that this determination ordinarily involves mixed questions of fact and law, and rightly discouraged the summary rejection of suits under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in complex intellectual property disputes of this nature. This approach promotes procedural fairness and ensures that technically nuanced claims receive full evidentiary consideration.

Ultimately, the judgment marks the Court’s movement away from a rigid, mechanical exclusion framework towards a more nuanced, purpose-oriented analysis. In the long run, the judgment is likely to influence how lower courts assess Section 15(2) defences and how industry players structure their intellectual property protection strategies. Although practical uncertainties remain, the ruling offers meaningful guidance for navigating the copyright–design interplay in India.

REFERENCE(S):

Cases

1. Inox India Ltd. v. Cryogas Equip. Pvt. Ltd. & LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Civil Suit of 2023 (4th Add’l Dist. Ct. [Commercial Court], Gujarat, India).
2. Inox India Ltd. v. Cryogas Equip. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., First Appeal of 2024 (Guj. H.C., India).
3. Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 INSC 483.
4. Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., (2009) 40 PTC 519 (Del).
5. Midas Hygiene Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90.

Statutes

1. Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 15(2) (India).
2. Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, § 2(d) (India).
3. Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, O. VII r. 11 (India).

Journals and Scholarly Papers

1. Aditya Bhargava, [Part I] Cryogas Judgment: Supreme Court Stops Copyright from “Gaslighting” Design, SPICYIP (Apr. 18, 2025), https://spicyip.com.
2. Advika Singh Malik, Assessing the Cryogas Judgment from the Lens of Section 52(1)(w), SPICYIP (Apr. 30, 2025), https://spicyip.com.
3. Kalyan Kankanala, Copyright vs. Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests, BANANAIP INTELLEPEDIA (Apr. 16, 2025), https://www.bananaip.com.
4. The Two-Pronged Test for Determining Copyright or Design Protection, CASEMINE (Apr. 16, 2025), https://www.casemine.com.
5. Khurana & Khurana, Copyright Work v. Industrial Design: Two-Prong Test Laid Down in Cryogas v. Inox (July 20, 2025), https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com.
6. Protecting Copyright, Designs and Confidentiality: Analysing the Inox India vs Cryogas Case, MONDAQ (July 16, 2025), https://www.mondaq.com.
7. Pravin Anand & Neeti Wilson, Overlap Between Design and Copyright Protection in India, 6 Indian J.L. & Tech. 1 (2010).

Reports and Institutional Publications

1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197.

¹ Law student, Marwadi University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India.

² Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025 INSC 483).

³ Aravinth Rajagopal, Supreme Court Clarifies Copyright vs. Design Law in Landmark Case, IR GLOBAL (May 1, 2025).

⁴ Inox India Ltd. v. Cryogas Equip. Pvt. Ltd. & LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Civil Suit of 2023 (4th Add’l Dist. Ct. [Commercial Court], Gujarat, India).

⁵ Inox India Ltd. v. Cryogas Equip. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., First Appeal of 2024 (Guj. H.C., India).

⁶ Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 INSC 483.

⁷ Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., (2009) 40 PTC 519 (Del).

⁸ Dr. Kalyan Kankanala, Copyright vs. Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests, BANANAIP INTELLEPEDIA (Apr. 16, 2025), https://www.bananaip.com.

⁹ Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, § 2(d) (India).

¹⁰ Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, O. VII r. 11 (India).

¹¹ Pravin Anand & Neeti Wilson, Overlap Between Design and Copyright Protection in India, 6 Indian J.L. & Tech. 1 (2010).

¹² Khurana & Khurana, Copyright Work v. Industrial Design: Two-Prong Test Laid Down in Cryogas v. Inox (July 20, 2025), https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com.

¹³ Protecting Copyright, Designs and Confidentiality: Analysing the Inox India vs Cryogas Case, MONDAQ (July 16, 2025), https://www.mondaq.com.