Can a court decide whether engineering drawings are an 'artistic work' or a registrable 'design' while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Coram: Surya Kant; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
No. That question involves a mixed question of law and fact and could not have been decided at a preliminary stage on a casual appraisal of the plaint averments. An application under Order VII Rule 11 involves only a prima facie inquiry as to the disclosure of a cause of action in the plaint. Where the Commercial Court non-suited the plaintiff by misreading the plaint, misapplying legal principles and overlooking the distinction between 'artistic work' and 'design', the case warrants a trial given the triable issues involved.
Copyright Act, 1957 — s.2(c) — s.14(c) — s.15(2) — Designs Act, 2000 — s.2(d) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. VII r.11 — Artistic work and design — Functional utility — Two-pronged approach — Copyright Act, 1957 — s.15(2) — Designs Act, 2000 — s.2(d) — Two-pronged approach — Held: A two-pronged approach governs the overlap. The court first asks whether the work is purely an artistic work or a design subjected to an industrial process, then applies functional utility to determine its dominant purpose. (¶60) Copyright Act, 1957 — s.2(c) — s.14(c) — Original artistic work — Copyright survives industrial application — Held further: An original artistic work does not lose copyright merely because a design derived from it is industrially applied. Artistic work under Section 2(c) has a wide connotation and need not possess visual appeal. (¶55, 58) Copyright Act, 1957 — s.15(2) — Designs Act, 2000 — Fifty reproductions — Copyright in design ceases — Held further: Copyright in a design capable of being registered under the Designs Act but not so registered ceases once the article is reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process. Design protection is not granted by default. (¶56, 59) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. VII r.11 — Mixed question of law and fact — Rejection of plaint — Held further: Whether drawings are an artistic work or a registrable design is a mixed question of law and fact, not decidable on a prima facie inquiry into the cause of action. Appeals dismissed; trial directed. (¶67, 68)
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India