Introduction
In the Indian creative and industrial landscape, designers often grapple with two overlapping yet distinct legal regimes: copyright and industrial design rights India. As industries like fashion, furniture, and consumer electronics expand, understanding when to rely on registered design protection India versus copyright becomes critical. This post explores the legal interplay, key court decisions, challenges posed by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and proposals to harmonize the frameworks for better IP protection strategy for product designers.
The Legal Framework: Copyright vs Design Law in India
Copyright (Copyright Act, 1957) protects original artistic works for the lifetime of the author plus 60 years, automatically—no formal registration needed. –.
Design registration under the Designs Act, 2000 focuses on the appearance (shape, configuration, pattern, ornament) of industrially applied designs; term: 10 years, extendable by 5.
Section 15 of the Copyright Act
- 15(1): If a design is registered under the Designs Act, copyright in that design ceases.
- 15(2): If a design capable of registration is not registered, copyright ceases once the article bearing that design is industrially reproduced more than 50 times
Industry Cases: How Courts Interpret the Overlap
The intersection of Design Registration and Copyright in India is best understood through landmark cases that interpret Section 15 of the Copyright Act, which limits copyright protection for industrially applied designs.
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co.
Summary:
Microfibres Inc. (the plaintiff) claimed copyright infringement over its original artistic drawings/sketches which were applied as designs to its upholstery fabrics. The fabric designs were then commercially manufactured and sold. The defendant argued that these designs were industrial in nature and, since they were reproduced for more than 50 articles without being registered under the Designs Act, they had lost their copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Judgement:
The Delhi High Court upheld the defense. It ruled that the designs were indeed “designs” capable of registration under the Designs Act, not pure “artistic works.” Since they had been applied to more than 50 articles through an industrial process without being registered, their copyright protection ceased.
Impact on Dual Protection:
This judgment firmly established the “50-reproduction rule” under Section 15(2). It made it clear that a design applied to an article for industrial purposes must be protected under the Designs Act for a shorter duration (10-15 years) and cannot benefit from the much longer term of copyright (life of the author plus 60 years). It compels designers of mass-produced articles to opt for Design Registration over relying on copyright for the applied design.
Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels
Summary:
Ritika Pvt. Ltd. (the Ritu Kumar brand) filed a suit for copyright infringement against Biba Apparels, alleging that Biba copied its unique drawings and prints used on its ethnic wear. The plaintiff claimed copyright protection for the original artistic sketches and drawings. The defendant sought to dismiss the suit by arguing that the prints were industrial designs that had been reproduced on more than 50 garments without design registration, thus losing their copyright under Section 15(2).
Judgement:
The Delhi High Court concurred with the defense. It held that the original sketches/drawings, when industrially applied to the fabric as a repetitive design or print and reproduced on more than 50 garments, transform into a “design” under the Designs Act. The failure to register them as designs resulted in the cessation of their copyright protection.
Impact on Dual Protection:
The ruling served as a major cautionary tale for the fashion and textile industries. It confirmed that even high-fashion designs, once they enter mass production (beyond 50 copies), cannot bypass the mandate for Design Registration. Designers must ensure they file for design protection for their commercial prints and patterns if they want legal recourse against copying. This promotes a balance between intellectual property protection and preventing an anti-competitive monopoly over mass-produced articles.
Inox India Ltd. v. Cryogas
Summary:
Inox India Ltd. claimed copyright infringement over its proprietary engineering drawings (technical schematics) used to manufacture cryogenic storage tanks and trailers, alleging the defendant, Cryogas, unlawfully used them. The defendant argued that these were “designs” for industrial articles and were thus barred from copyright protection by Section 15(2), as they had been reproduced more than 50 times.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India, in its 2025 judgment, held that the summary dismissal of the suit based only on Section 15(2) was premature. The Court established a two-pronged test: first, to determine if the work is a functional engineering drawing deserving copyright, and second, if it is a design, to apply a functional utility test to see if it is solely dictated by function or also has visual appeal.
Crucially, subsequent court rulings have often distinguished technical drawings—especially those concerning internal, functional elements without aesthetic appeal—from the designs meant to “appeal solely to the eye” (the definition of a “design”). This suggests such drawings might retain copyright.
Impact on Dual Protection:
The judgment refined the distinction by suggesting that purely functional works, like detailed technical or engineering drawings, may not be considered a “design” under the Designs Act because they lack visual appeal as their primary purpose. Consequently, they may retain their original copyright protection, and the bar under Section 15(2) would not apply.
This differentiates highly technical drawings from decorative patterns and underscores that design registration is only for features that are aesthetic and applied to an article to be judged by the eye.
The ruling reinforces that a work cannot receive dual protection under both the Copyright Act and the Designs Act.
When Should Designers Opt for Design Registration Over Copyright? And Vice Versa
To determine whether to opt for Design Registration over Copyright, designers must move past the idea of mere protection and focus on the strategic intent of their work: Is it primarily for mass market utility or singular artistic expression? The Indian jurisprudence, particularly the definitive “50-reproduction rule” under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, mandates a strategic choice. Designers must opt for Design Registration when their work’s key features (shape, pattern, configuration) are intended to be applied industrially to an article more than fifty times.
This ensures a clear, albeit shorter (15-year maximum), monopoly right to prevent commercial copying of the applied design. Conversely, a designer should rely on Copyright when the work is a pure artistic creation (like a painting, sculpture, or original drawing) intended to be a singular piece or where its function is secondary to its aesthetic value.
Key Takeaway: The moment an artwork transitions from a piece of fine art to a template for mass production (e.g., turning a sketch into a textile print or a unique chair design), its legal nature shifts from an enduring copyright to a transient, yet potent, design right, making timely registration an essential commercial prerequisite, not an optional formality.
Section 15(2): Boon or Barrier for Designers?
Section 15(2) can be both protective and restrictive:
Benefits:
- Encourages timely design registration.
- Prevents copyright from being used to extend monopolies on industrial designs.
Drawbacks:
- Creators may unintentionally lose copyright if they mass-produce without registration.
- Ambiguity in distinguishing “functional vs aesthetic design distinction” creates legal risk.
For designers, the distinction between copyright infringement vs design infringement India is crucial. A design may be copyrighted when artistic, then shift to design domain upon industrial use. Without clarity, enforcing rights becomes complex.
Practical “How-To” Guide for Designers
Evaluate your intent:
- If your work is artistic (e.g., illustration, unique motif) and not intended for mass production, rely on copyright.
- If it’s applied to products (e.g., furniture, textile patterns), consider design registration early.
Track reproduction counts:
- Avoid exceeding 50 articles before registering designs—factory logs help.
Use the twin test:
- Ask: (a) Is it a visual design meeting the Designs Act? (b) Is its dominant purpose aesthetic?
- If both yes, register; if not, copyright may still apply.
Secure both IP regimes when possible:
- Where applicable (e.g., standalone artwork vs applied product), claim both copyright and design protection selectively.
Stay informed on procedural updates:
- Design filings are faster: pendency now down to ~1 month; digital submissions streamlined.
Final Thoughts
- Dual protection is limited—Section 15(2) curbs copyright if a design is industrially reproduced over 50 times without registration.
- Twin test simplifies clarity: eligibility under Designs Act + dominant aesthetic purpose = need to register.
- Design registration is essential for mass-produced works; copyright remains for standalone artistic creations.
- Modernization and international alignment (e.g., GUI registration, digital processes) can help fill gaps.
- Proactive IP strategy combining early assessment, filing, and awareness ensures stronger protection.
FAQ
1. What’s the difference between design registration and copyright protection in India?
Copyright protects artistic expression automatically (lifetime + 60 years). Design registration protects the visual appearance of industrially applied objects (10 + 5 years), but requires formal application.
2. What is Section 15(2) and why is it controversial?
It extinguishes copyright if an unregistered design is applied to more than 50 articles through an industrial process—creating risk and uncertainty for creators.
3. When should a designer opt for design registration over copyright protection?
When intending to apply designs to products in quantity—early registration avoids losing copyright rights.
4. Can a designer claim both copyright and design protection?
Only when distinct aspects apply: standalone artwork may have copyright; design elements applied industrially (with registration) enjoy design protection, but not copyright for the same work under Section 15(1).
5. How does India’s approach compare with international regimes?
India is aligning via the Riyadh Treaty (grace period, digital filing). GUI registration is now being entertained by courts, reflecting global trends. However, Section 15(2) is more restrictive than many jurisdictions.
