Abstract
Composite claims for copyright and design have long posed conceptual difficulties under Indian law. A pointed attempt by the Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment v Inox India (‘Cryogas’) to resolve these difficulties, therefore, is of considerable interest.
In this Comment, I examine Cryogas in detail. I find that, despite adopting a schematic approach that is promising on the surface, Cryogas offers little assistance in untangling the constituent portions of copyright-design claims. For one, its test for telling apart artistic works from designs is entirely self-referential and requires a pre-existing understanding of what outputs statutorily constitute ‘artistic works’ and ‘designs’. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the ‘dominant purpose’ of a design, meanwhile, is a dangerous evasion of the core inquiry into design functionality. Under Cryogas, ‘dominant purpose’ is a one-stop functionality assessment. Yet, the Supreme Court overshoots its remit on ‘dominant purpose’, selectively engages with precedent, and throws its weight behind an assessment that fails even a rudimentary complex article test. Even at its best, this interpretation of ‘dominant purpose’ introduces another avenue of subjectivity into what is already an intensely subjective appraisal.
The Supreme Court does, however, succeed on procedure. Cryogas sets a very high bar for in limine interference with copyright-design claims. This is a sorely needed intervention; one which correctly defers to the inherent complexity of such claims.
On balance, therefore, the Cryogas Supreme Court does make a telling contribution to Indian law– though perhaps as much for it does not say as for what it does.
Recommended Citation
Ghosh, Eashan
(2024)
"A Case Comment on Cryogas Equipment v. Inox India,"
Indian Journal of Law and Technology: Vol. 20:
Iss.
2, Article 5.
DOI: 10.55496/XMWG4126
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/ijlt/vol20/iss2/5
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.55496/XMWG4126
