The court clarified the distinction between copyright and design protection, emphasizing that the determination of whether a work qualifies as a design or an artistic work requires a detailed examination, necessitating a trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Surya Kant, J.)

Leave granted.

2. The captioned appeals arise from a common judgement dated 22.10.2024 delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (High Court) in a dispute between the parties primarily concerning an alleged copyright infringement, whereby the 4th Additional District Judge at Vadodara’s (Commercial Court) order dated 03.05.2024 allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was set aside, and the Suit filed by Respondent No. 2 was restored to its original number (Impugned Judgement).

3. The parties to the appeal are, inter alia embroiled in a dispute concerning the purported infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights in relation to the designing and manufacturing of the internal parts of Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems which are mounted on Trailers and Semi-Trailers, to effectively transport industrial gases, liquified natural gas (LNG) and such like substances.

A. FACTS

4. That being so, given the shared sequence of events underlying these two appeals, this presents an appropriate juncture for a detailed examination of the factual matrix.

4.1. The dispute between the parties arose when Respondent No. 1 in these appeals, Inox India Limited (Inox), filed Trademark Suit No. 3/2019 (Suit) before the Commercial Court against the Appellants, i.e. Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (Cryogas) and LNG Express India Private Limited (LNG Express), on 24.09.2018. Inox primarily alleged that Cryogas, LNG Express, and others had infringed two distinct types of copyright: (i) the drawings of LNG Semi-trailers developed by Inox (Proprietary Engineering Drawings); and (ii) the details, processes, descriptions and narrations written by Inox employees in creating the Proprietary Engineering Drawings (Literary Works). These IPs were supposedly developed by Inox to meet the specific requirements for storing and transporting sophisticated LNG Semi-trailers suitable for Indian roads.

4.2. In this Suit, Inox sought relief in terms of: (i) a declaration that Cryogas, LNG Express and others have infringed Inox’s Proprietary Engineering Drawings, IP and Literary Works; (ii) a permanent injunction restraining Cryogas, LNG Express and the other associated parties from using or reproducing any drawings or works similar to that of Inox’s Proprietary Engineering Drawings or Literary Works; (iii) a permanent injunction against the use of any IP or know-how associated with manufacturing the impugned products; (iv) an order directing Cryogas, LNG Express and others to surrender all infringing materials for destruction, including drawings, trailers, labels and other items using the Proprietary Engineering Drawings; and (v) an award of damages amounting to Rs. 2 Crores for copyright infringement.

4.3. In addition, Inox filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain Cryogas, LNG Express, and others from infringing its IP rights and confidential information during the pendency of the Suit.

4.4. In response thereto, LNG Express moved its application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Suit on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act). It primarily contended that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, for which Inox claimed copyright protection, fell within the definition of a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (Designs Act). It argued that Inox had lost copyrights for the said drawings by failing to register them under the Designs Act. Furthermore, LNG Express asserted that copyright does not subsist in any design that is registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act once it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process, either by the copyright owner or any authorised licensee. Specifically, it contested Inox’s claim of generating revenue amounting to Rupees 122 crores,