16 April 2025 Legal Updates

  SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN TWIN TEST TO RESOLVE COPYRIGHT–DESIGN CONFLICT UNDER S15(2) OF COPYRIGHT ACT  

(a) Case Name: 

• Cryogas Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Inox India Limited & Ors. 

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• 15th April 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justice Surya Kant & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh 

Background of the Case

A dispute arose from a copyright infringement claim by Inox India Limited against Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and LNG Express India Pvt. Ltd.  Inox alleged that the appellants had copied its Proprietary Engineering Drawings (for cryogenic storage tanks) and Literary Works (descriptions of manufacturing processes). 

The Commercial Court (Vadodara) initially dismissed Inox’s suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the drawings were a 'design' under the Designs Act, 2000, and thus not protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.  The Gujarat High Court reversed this decision, restoring the suit. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court. 

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the Proprietary Engineering Drawings qualify as a 'design' under the Designs Act or an 'artistic work' under the Copyright Act? 
• Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? 
• Interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act (which limits copyright protection for designs capable of registration under the Designs Act if reproduced industrially over 50 times). 

Supreme Court' s Analysis Decision

1. Distinction Between 'Artistic Work' & 'Design' 

• Copyright Act (Section 2(c)): Protects artistic works (drawings, diagrams, etc.) irrespective of artistic quality. 
• Designs Act (Section 2(d)): Protects industrial designs (shape, pattern, ornamentation) applied to articles through industrial processes, provided they have visual appeal. 
• Section 15(2) of Copyright Act: If a work is capable of being registered as a design but is not registered, copyright protection ceases after 50+ industrial reproductions. 

2. Two-Pronged Test Laid Down by SC 

To determine whether a work falls under the Copyright Act or Designs Act, courts must examine: 

• Nature of Work: Is it purely an artistic work or a design derived from it and industrially applied? 
• Functional Utility Test: Does the work serve a functional purpose (covered under Designs Act) or is it purely aesthetic (covered under Copyright Act)? 

DECISION

• The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the suit at the preliminary stage. 
• The issue required a full trial to determine whether the drawings were artistic works or registrable designs. 
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC is only for cases where no cause of action is disclosed, not for complex mixed questions of law and fact. 

DIRECTIONS GIVEN

• The Commercial Court must decide on Inox’s interim injunction application within 2 months. 
• The trial must be completed within 1 year, applying the two-pronged test laid down by the Supreme Court. 

  HOSPITAL'S LICENCE SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED IF ANY NEWBORN IS TRAFFICKED FROM THERE: SUPREME COURT  

(a) Case Title:

• Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• 15th April 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan 

Background:

The case involved multiple criminal appeals arising from bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court to 13 accused persons in connection with FIRs related to an interstate child trafficking racket. The accused were charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 311 (causing miscarriage), and 370(5) (trafficking) of the Indian Penal Code. The victims, mostly impoverished parents, alleged their minor children were kidnapped and sold for sums ranging from ₹40,000 to ₹10 lakhs. 

Key Issues:

• Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused without considering the gravity of the offense. 
• The need for stricter scrutiny in cases involving organized child trafficking. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

1. Seriousness of the Crime: 

• Child trafficking is a heinous offense violating constitutional rights (Article 23) and international conventions. 
• The accused operated a well-organized network across Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan, exploiting vulnerable families. 

2. Flaws in Bail Orders: 

• The High Court mechanically granted bail, ignoring: 
• The accused's roles as kingpins or facilitators. 
• Evidence of recovered children from some accused. 
• Risk of witnesses being tampered with or accused absconding (many did after bail). 
• The Court emphasized that bail in such cases requires a balanced assessment of societal interests and personal liberty. 

3. Global and National Context: 

• Cited UN protocols and Indian laws (e.g., Juvenile Justice Act, 2015) criminalizing trafficking. 
• Highlighted a BIRD-NHRC report (2023) revealing systemic gaps in combating trafficking, including low conviction rates and poor enforcement. 

4. Directions Issued: 

• Cancelled bail for all accused, directing their surrender and expedited trials. 
• Ordered police protection for victims, special public prosecutors, and compensation under BNSS 2023. 
• Mandated state governments to implement anti-trafficking measures, including functional Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs). 

Key Legal Principles:

 In Bail Jurisprudence the Courts must consider: 

• Nature of accusations, evidence, and punishment. 
• Risk of accused influencing witnesses or fleeing. 
• Societal impact (e.g., trafficking as a threat to public order). 
• Child Rights: Trafficking violates Articles 21 (right to life) and 23 (prohibition of trafficking) of the Constitution.