Supreme Court Sets Out Twin Pronged Test to Resolve Copyright Design Dispute. In 2018, Inox filed a lawsuit claiming its unique engineering drawings and related details (literary work) had been copied and used without permission in the manufacture of cryogenic semi-trailers for transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Commercial Court dismissed the suit by arguing that the drawings, if used more than 50 times in production, lose copyright protection because they fall under “designs” per the Designs Act, 2000.
Gujarat High Court later restored the suit, stating that more analysis was needed to decide if the drawings were purely artistic or merely unregistered designs.
2025 INSC 483, MANU/SC/0487/2025
Artistic Work, Copyright Act, Designs Act, Intellectual Property Rights, Twin Pronged Test
None
Whether the disputed drawings should be treated as an “artistic work” under the Copyright Act, 1957 or as a “design” under the Designs Act, 2000?
The Supreme Court has recently introduced a clear two-step test to address this issue
Step 1 – Identify the Nature of the Work
Step 2 – Apply the “Functional Utility” Test
Conclusion
The Court made it clear that the dismissal of copyright protection does not automatically mean the work will receive protection as a design.
The matter needs a proper trial to clearly determine how many times the work has been reproduced and to decide if its main feature is artistic or functional.
Whether the disputed drawings should be treated as an “artistic work” under the Copyright Act, 1957 or as a “design” under the Designs Act, 2000?
The Supreme Court has recently introduced a clear two-step test to address this issue
Step 1 – Identify the Nature of the Work
The Court directed that it must first be determined whether the work in question is a pure "artistic work" or a "design".
If it is a pure “artistic work” (like a painting or drawing created purely for artistic expression), it gets full copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
If it is a “design” (i.e. the work is a derivative of an artistic work, used in an industrial process, and capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000), then its copyright protection can cease once it is applied and reproduced industrially more than 50 times.
Step 2 – Apply the “Functional Utility” Test
If the work is classified as a “design,” the next step is to check its “functional utility.”
The Court clarified that the work’s primary purpose must be evaluated - if its main function is to serve a utilitarian or practical purpose rather than providing aesthetic appeal, then it will not qualify for design protection.
Only those designs that have a dominant aesthetic (visual) appeal qualify for protection under the Designs Act, 2000.
ConclusionThe Court made it clear that the dismissal of copyright protection does not automatically mean the work will receive protection as a design. The matter needs a proper trial to clearly determine how many times the work has been reproduced and to decide if its main feature is artistic or functional.