Does an original artistic work lose copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 merely because a design derived from it has been industrially applied to create a product?

No. The original artistic work, which initially enjoys copyright protection, does not lose it merely because a 'design' derived from it has been industrially applied. 'Artistic work' under Section 2(c) has a wide connotation, may be two or three-dimensional and may or may not have visual appeal, whereas 'design' is restricted to features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article by an industrial process, resulting in a finished article that appeals to the eye. Copyright in such a design, if 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.

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India