The SC, in the case of Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.,^[1] delved into the aspect of whether proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works associated with internal parts of liquified natural gas storage tanks and distribution systems were protected as ‘artistic works’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’), or fell within the definition of ‘designs’ as under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (‘Designs Act’).

Inox alleged copyright infringement, while the appellants argued that since the drawings had been industrially applied to more than 50 articles and were not registered as designs, copyright protection was no longer applicable as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

The SC clarified that in order to determine whether such works are protectable as ‘artistic works’ under copyrights or ‘designs’, a two pronged approach needs to be taken, i.e.: (i) whether the work in question  is a pure artistic work or a design derived from it and industrially applied; and (ii) apply the ‘functional utility test’ to ascertain whether the dominant purpose of such work is functional or not. As per the ‘functional utility’ test, if the primary characteristic of the work is its functional utility rather than aesthetic appeal, it would not qualify to seek protection under the Designs Act.

The SC held that the question of whether the engineering drawings are ‘artistic works’ or ‘designs’ involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring a full trial rather than summary rejection, and re-directed the Commercial Court to decide the pending interim injunction as well as conduct a full trial in this case.

[1] Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780.