TWIN TEST LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COURT TO NAVIGATE COPYRIGHT AND DESIGN LAW CONFLICT

 

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh maintained that the Commercial Court’s application order under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was properly set aside by the High Court. Inox India Limited received court authorization to continue its copyright infringement claim after the Supreme Court ordered suit restoration. The raised issues within the plaint presented both legal and factual matters that exceeded dismissal by summary. The Court established how Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act of 1957 relates to the Designs Act of 2000 while defining a set of criteria for determining the relevant legal framework.

 

BACKGROUND

LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Inox India Limited & Another, 2025 INSC 483

 

The legal dispute started when Inox India Limited brought a commercial lawsuit against Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and its associated companies LNG Express India Private Limited as well as other entities for alleged IP infringement. The complaint presented two distinct kinds of protections under copyright law:

• Proprietary Engineering Drawings for cryogenic semi-trailers
• Design narratives coupled with test procedures represent Literary Works among the textual materials that fall under this category.

 

Inox insisted that the works served Indian road conditions while providing essential inputs to develop and build cryogenic semi-trailers. Inox submitted a suit action to the court based on Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act demanding:

• A declaration of copyright infringement,
• Permanent injunctions,
• Destruction of infringing materials, and
• ₹2 crores in damages.

 

Alongside the suit Inox brought an application for temporary measures according to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application from LNG Express stated that engineering drawings qualified as Designs Act designs beyond Copyright Act protection because Section 15(2) excluded both the unregistered drawings along with industrial scale reproduction.

 

KEY POINTS

• LNG Express requested the court to acknowledge that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings qualified as “designs” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act because they served over fifty industrial production instances without proper registration. The revenue generation of ₹122 crores put Inox beyond the protected thresholds per Section 15(2) which barred them from obtaining copyright.
• Through their representation by senior lawyers Mr. Chander M. Lall and Mr. J. Sai Deepak Inox asserted that non-visual internal components of the drawings did not satisfy the visual requirements under the Designs Act. They declared the works qualified as artistic works through Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act thus ineligible for design registration.
• Koch Steel filed an objection that the petition contained confused legal and factual elements and simultaneously implicated literary rights and confidential business practices of Inox. The application criteria in Order VII Rule 11 did not justify summary dismissal of the case.
• Documents belonging to Inox with proprietary markings were officially documented as seized by the Local Commissioner through his report from 26.09.2018.

 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

• On April 1st 2022 the Commercial Court processed an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application and discarded the filing.
• The High Court took control of the case on 13.03.2024 because it discovered insufficient legal assessment and factual evidence in the application decision thus reinstating the legal proceedings.
• The Commercial Court rejected Inox’s plaint for a second time on 03.05.2024 thus leading the company to file a new appeal.
• The High Court restored the lawsuit together with the interlocutory restraint application before ordering complete judicial proceedings.
• Senior Counsel Mr. Shyam Divan defended LNG Express in front of the Supreme Court by asserting drawings as commercial designs which lost their copyright eligibility.
• According to Inox the drawings did not qualify for registration under the Designs Act and simultaneously the court could not apply Order VII Rule 11 because a cause of action had been revealed.
• The Supreme Court acknowledged that the complaint presented important issues which required a court trial about what constituted artistic works or designs in the subject matter.
• Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act requires passing two conditions for eligibility which the Court established as follows:

• A work qualifies as artistic or serves as a design from artistic work with industrial application.
• The functional utility test determines the main functional nature of the work to determine eligibility.

• Industrial transformation of artistic works that surpass fifty units in reproduction with visual value results in their classification as “designs” according to the Designs Act and exposes them to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court rejected the appeals before confirming the High Court decision which created a pathway for the lawsuit to advance to trial stage. The Supreme Court determined that the documents presented sufficient evidence of legal standing thus the Commercial Court made an incorrect decision when it dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The said instructions from the Court included:

• The Commercial Court needs to conclude Inox’s Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC application within a two-month period.
• The trial needs to finish within twelve months while remembering any time delays from interlocutory applications.
• The Commercial Court needs to apply the legal criteria from paragraph 60 of the Supreme Court judgment to determine drawing nature then conduct independent assessments for literary copyright and other confidential information and know-how claims.

Supreme Court specifically stated that findings made under Order VII Rule 11 had no bearing on the subsequent trial of merits. All pending applications received resolution based on the clearance procedures.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY RIMPLEPREET KAUR