Lessons from Cryogas v. Inox

The recent Supreme Court judgment of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs. Inox India Limited and Ors. On 15th April, laid down Two-Pronged test to settle the prolonged battle between Copyright and Design. The battle between copyright protection and Design registration in India has lived for years, and this judgment not only resolved the legal uncertainty around section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Design Act, 2000, but also underscored the vitality of the Functional Utility test, which was also discussed in the case of Microfibers Inc. vs girdhar & co. & Anr. in 2009 and had been important in the IP jurisprudence. The only thing constant is “change”, as industries are evolving, the overlapping of Copyright and Design has become a new commonality these days in legal battlefields. This landmark judgement will also affect multiple other legal sectors intersecting with design and copyright, and one such is the field of Fashion Law, which is emerging big these days.
Let us imagine a young fashion designer who designs a new collection for the winter collection at their boutique, comprising floral prints made up of varied figures and shapes, and her work gets popular both online and offline, and makes sales of thousands of clothing pieces. But suddenly, one day, she discovers that a competitor is selling very similar clothing to hers, outraged by this, she files a copyright infringement suit under sections 55 & 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. To this, the Competitor (Defendant) contends that her designs fall under the ambit of the Designs Act, 2000, and since she has failed to get them registered and commercially made more than 50 clothing pieces, her copyright has automatically expired as per section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, leaving her in a state of intense thought that when does her designs failed to be a copyright and became an industrial design.
The answer to her deep thought lies in the recent ruling of the Cryogas v. Inox, where our Apex Court laid down two-pronged test, which now holds high significance in IP legal jurisprudence. This case dealt with Inox India Limited, who manufactured cryogenic tanks and made allegations against Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India that they had infringed its Proprietary Engineering Drawings and literary works. These involved technical materials, designing cryogenic semi-trailers for transporting industrial gases like LNG, and Inox further stated that its drawing and supporting documents were original and artistic, thus claiming that it must be protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Further, Cryogas and LNG Express countered these allegations by pleading for Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and argued that Inox’s Proprietary Engineering Drawings fall under the ambit of the Designs Act and must be registered under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 and they further stated that Inox did not got the “Semi-trailers” registered and manufactured more than 50 units, hence their copyrights has ceased to exist, hence claims made by Inox were vague.
In counter again, Inox stayed at their initial argument and stated that their work (Semi-trailers and cryogenic tanks) failed to have a visual appeal, a necessary element to qualify itself as a design under the Designs Act, 2000. Inox further highlighted the functionality of the cryogenic tanks by drawing attention to the inner vessels, valves, etc., which are not visible to the public view and do not have an intent of visual appeal or aesthetics, hence, they asked for their right of copyright protection. They further asked for protection for their literary works, like quality manuals, protocols, and many others, for which they stated that they lie outside the ambit of design laws.
To all these arguments and counter-arguments, the Supreme Court resorted and laid out the Two-Pronged Test to resolve this IP battle. Going by the name, this test is comprised of two parts: the First part seeks to evaluate whether the impugned work has complete attributes of an art or a design following its industrial application under Section 15(2), while the second part examines its utility applying the functional utility test (evaluating the primary purpose/function of the impugned work). Going through the above test, the S.C. came to a conclusion and ruled that Inox’s work does not fall under the “designs” as they failed in visual appeal and its primary function was functional, hence Inox’s copyright was upheld.
This landmark case will now impact other fields of law, and one such being is Fashion Law, where there is a constant battle between art and utility. In the times of fast fashion, fashion is increasingly becoming a place of mass production while intersecting with the artistic expressions of the designers. This two-pronged test laid out in the above case will now help in drawing lines between an art/design and a copyrighted product.
The Two-Pronged Test: A New Turning Point in IP Jurisprudence
The Two-Pronged Test is a landmark indicator that can be used by the courts in determining whether a work falls under an “artistic work” under the Copyright Act, 1957, or a “design” under the Designs Act, 2000. This test is being seeded from the plant of Engineering disputes, but bears direct implication on fashion law as well, as aesthetics often meets with functionality in the fashion field, as seen in cases like Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Design PVT. Ltd., 2009.
As the name suggests, the test is divided into two prongs/parts, which are:
-
Prong 1: The first part deals with the visual appeal to the eyes, which is a crucial factor for a “design” to get legal protection under the Designs Act, 2000. Now, here, the visual appeals are the features of the work that please the eyes and do not have any functionality as such; they are just for the aesthetics.
-
Prong 2: The second part of the test deals with the utility of the design; it examines whether the design holds a specific purpose or function primarily, or just has an aesthetic appeal as referred in the case of Smithkline Beecham plc. in. Hindustan Lever Ltd. where the “S” design had a utility function as upheld by the Delhi High Court. Hence, if the key function of the design is practical/functional, then it will not lie under the Designs Act, 2000.
This precedent will play a crucial role in the fashion industry, where designers often battle for copyright and engage themselves with a fine line separating a design and copyright. For a design under the Fashion law to have a copyright, then it must either qualify as an “artistic work” under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, or it must completely (both the prongs) fulfil the above-mentioned test.
Implications on Fashion Law
This two-pronged test of Cryogas v. Inox, and landmark precedents like Microfibers Inc. vs girdhar & co. & Anr., 2009, when referred together, will have significant implications in the field of fashion law as it will try to resolve the long-lasting battle of copyright and design, especially when they are commercially exploited.
In the realm of Fashion Law, the aesthetic features of a design include shape, pattern, configuration, colours, etc. These are essentially external attributes like embroidery, patchwork work, etc., and these are protected by the Designs Act 2000 and enjoy protection for 10 years, which can be further extended for 5 years. Whereas, the copyright includes the external attributes, which are the designer’s original artistic work, which may include embroidery, hand-drawn motifs, etc., and this enjoys protection for the lifetime and 60 years after the death. But there is a twist to it, when a designer commercially reproduces more than fifty pieces of the copyrighted artwork, then the designer loses their copyright, and in order to protect their artwork, they must get it registered under the Designs Act, 2000.
A similar instance happened in the case of Microfibers Inc. vs Girdhar & Co. & Anr., where the Delhi High Court specifically held that fabric patterns which are artistic lose copyright once they are commercially produced over fifty times without registration under the Designs Act, 2000. Herein, the court highlighted that patterns have no independent artistic presence beyond their functional utilization on textiles, as they were here meant to be used for mass upholstery, hence it failed to lie under the copyright law. This case underscored that fabrics being visibly appealing and having no specific functional utility, hence, fall under the definition of design under section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, and must comply with registration in order to maintain protection.
Similar reasonings were observed in cases like Mattel Inc. & Ors v. Jayant Aggarwalla & Ors.where the High Court of Delhi rejected the appeal for copyright protection of the design of Mattel’s board game as it was produced for mass without any registration. Equally, the same happened in Dart Industries Inc. v. Techno Plastwhere the Delhi High Court rejected a copyright claim of a product that is meant for commercial distribution.
Drawing from the above-mentioned precedents, where designers struggle between artistic expression and commercial production, they must properly examine their creation as with the intent for aesthetics, hence, copyrightable or meant for application over clothing, accessories, or fabrics, hence falling under the Designs Act. If not assessed properly, the consequence might be critical, as if fashion design has crossed over fifty pieces of production industrially, then its copyright will be ceased as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, even if the design was original and had an artistic nature and hence, the only way left for protection is the Designs Act, 2000 which provides a protection for 10 years which can be further extended by 5 more years.
Thus, the doctrine emerging from Cryogas, Microfibersand allied rulings compels the fashion industry to strategically use design registration, not just rely on copyright. This marks a transformative shift in how intellectual property law will shape creativity, commerce, and conflict in the world of fashion.
This case and its two-pronged test have brought an end to the years-long battle of design and copyright, and have alarmed designers to be now more cautious in this era of fast fashion, where crossing the limit of fifty threshold will result in the stripping off copyright protection of the artistic design work. This judgment compels the fashion industry to shift from reliance on copyright alone to a more strategic and informed use of design law. Moving forward, legal awareness must be embedded into the fashion creation process. Cryogas thus serves as a crucial precedent, guiding designers toward smarter IP choices that secure both creativity and commercial value.