Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. and Ors

“It must be kept in mind that the overarching objective is to ensure that rights granted under either regime serve their intended purpose without unduly encroaching upon the domain of the other.” 

  • Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh

The Supreme Court in this case has ordered a fresh trial. The Bench in this case has dismissed the respondent’s appeal. The Apex Court in this case has taken a close look at the complexities of the Intellectual Property Laws (IPR) laws in India. The court has put main emphasis on how Design Act, 2000 and Copyright Act, 1957 are connected. The Apex Court has also laid down 2 pronged tests to figure out the dilemma of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Brief Details of Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. and Ors

Name of the Case Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. and Ors
Case Number C.A. No.-005174-005174 – 2025
Parties of the Case Appellant- Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
Respondent – Inox India Limited
Advocates of the parties Appellant- Senior Advocate Shyam DivanRespondent – Senior Advocates Chander M Lall and J Sai Deepak
Equivalent Citations Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 28062 / 2024
Type of the Case Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Court Supreme Court of India
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case The Design Act, 2000The Copyright Act, 1957Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
Bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya KantHon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Judgement Date  15/4/2025

Genesis of the dispute

This case revolves around a dispute which arose between Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. and Inox India Ltd. Inox India Ltd claims that these two companies have copied:

  1. Literary descriptions (descriptions of manufacturing processes)
  2. Engineering drawings (for cryogenic storage tanks)

Inox further claimed that copying these two has violated its copyright. The suit was initially dismissed by the Vadodara Commercial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). As per the Vadodara Commercial Court this case did not have any valid legal reason to move forward. The court further states that these engineering drawings are actually designs as per the definition of it under the Design Act, 2000. Hence, the claim made by Inox did not stand. 

Inox then appealed the case in Gujarat High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and stated that the Commercial Court erred in dismissing  the case. The High Court stated that a detailed trial must be conducted to find out whether the literary descriptions and engineering drawings qualify for protection under the Copyright Act or not. 

Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. were not satisfied with the decision of the Gujarat High Court. They challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. 

Legal provisions involved in this case

Section 15(2) of Copyright Act, 1957

This sub-section states that you can create a design which can be registered under the Design Act, 2000, however if you do not register it, then also it will be protected under the copyright protection for a limited number of times. Once the design is used for 50 times, for any industrial or commercial use it will not be protected under copyright. A copyright infringement cannot be claimed after this. 

Key issues before the court 

  1. Whether Proprietary Engineering Drawings will be considered ‘design’ under the Design Act, 2000 or will it be qualified as ‘artistic work’ under the Copyright Act,1957?
  2. How to interpret the Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
  3. Whether it was correct for the High Court to dismiss the case under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)?

Submission by both sides in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. and Ors

Grounds raised by appellant

  • The appellants argue that the engineering drawings which are in question fall under the definition of design. Hence they cannot be protected under copyright protection if they are used in industrial application for more than fifty times. 
  • Further, the appellants also contended that the drawings were never registered by Inox India Ltd. under the Design Act, 2000. 
  • Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd. stated that their designs were based on mandatory international and national standards (e.g., ASME, PED, MoRTH), which are to be followed by all companies. 
  • This implies that there is very limited scope when it comes to creativity and originality and thus they cannot be considered artistic works under the copyright laws. 
  • Appellants also raised the question in front of the court that Inox India Ltd. has only disclosed revenue amount instead of the total number of units which were manufactured as it might trigger the limitation under Section 15(2).

Grounds raised by respondent 

  • The respondent put emphasis on the claim which says that  engineering drawings” (artistic works) and literary descriptions (literary works) both should be protected independently. 
  • The representatives of Inox India Ltd. also stated that the drawings are excluded from protection under Design Act, 2000 as they lack visual appeal. The drawings are used for mechanical, internal, and functional means. 
  • The respondents have asked for a full trial on this matter. 

Analysis by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzes the definitions of artistic work and design. Artistic work is protected under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The artistic works like drawings, diagrams etc are protected irrespective of artistic quality. While design is protected under Section 2(d) of Design Act, 2000 provided that there is a visual appeal. 

Two pronged test by Supreme Court

In order to determine whether the work falls under Design Act or Copyright Act the court must look into:

  1. Nature of the work 
  2. Functional utility test – does the design have any functional use or it is for artistic purposes only. 

Judicial findings in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. and Ors

The Apex Court concurred with the view taken by  the High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court also thinks that the Vadodara Commercial Court has made an error by dismissing the case. The current matter is very complex and needs a proper and detailed trial. A well researched trial is to be conducted to find whether the literary descriptions and engineering drawings are designs or protected under copyright. Evidence needs to be examined in this case to find more details. 

The Supreme Court has also clarified that Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is only applicable when there is no legal case at all, which means there is no cause of action. 

The Supreme Court instructed that:

  1. Commercial Court to decide on the interim injunction in two months and 
  2. The Apex Court has also instructed to complete the case in one year.
  3. The Commercial Court has to use the two step test given by the Supreme Court to decide the case. 

Takeaways from the case

The Apex Court in this case has emphasised the importance of having a balance between the interplay of Design Act, 2000 and Copyright Act, 1957. The Apex Court also introduced the two pronged test. The court has also stated the importance of having a full trial without jumping to conclusions. 

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in Instagram Facebook