When Art Becomes Product: The Thin Line Between Copyright and Design in India

Introduction

The Indian Supreme Court has drawn a crucial distinction between design registration under the Designs Act of 2000 and copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1957. The distinction largely arises where artistic works are being utilised in industrially manufactured goods, thus making it explicit what legal protection is afforded to the maker and producer. The celebrated judgment of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. (2009) is the basis of this legal order, practically dissolving conflicts between the two intellectual property systems.

Legal Framework.

In Indian law, copyright covers original artistic works, such as paintings, drawings, and sculptures, thus giving creators absolute ownership of their work. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, however, states that in case a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act but not registered, protection under copyright is lost as soon as the design has been industrially applied and reproduced over fifty times. Conversely, the Designs Act of 2000 provides a ten-year monopoly, extendable to fifteen years, for new or fresh designs applied to articles by industrial processes, thus providing commercial exclusivity for registered designs.

Case Summary: Microfibres Inc. vs. Girdhar & Company.

The conflict arose when Microfibres, an artist dealing in creative fabric patterns for upholstery, alleged that Girdhar & Co. copied its designs. Microfibres had sought relief at law in terms of copyright law, while the defendants claimed that the designs were subject to the Designs Act provisions. The Supreme Court held that, since the designs were industrially applied and not registered under the Designs Act, copyright protection was lost once mass production was undertaken. The ruling established that the purpose of copyright law is to protect only artistic works, while the Designs Act controls functional, commercially replicated designs.

Important Judicial Precedents:

The principle established in Microfibres was reiterated in subsequent judgments, most significantly in Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008), where the Court held that registered designs must obtain protection only under the Designs Act and should not be claimed under copyright. Likewise, in Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels (2011), the Delhi High Court followed the precedent established in Microfibres and withheld copyright protection for unregistered industrial designs. Collectively, these judgments emphasize the supreme importance of registration of design for commercially produced articles.

The important question was determining whether the registration was for copyright or design. Most people were baffled by this, and if there were guidelines to ascertain this, it would substantially reduce the confusion between design and copyright registration. A landmark judgement provided some direction while reinforcing the decision of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. (2009) case. In a recent judgment involving Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025), the Honourable Supreme Court of India reiterated the well-established principle of preceding judgements that unregistered industrial designs lose copyright protection when used in functional articles and mass-produced. 

The Court reaffirmed its previous position established in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009) to the effect that the protection under the Copyright Rights Act shall cease to exist if the design is capable of being registered under the Design Act and, i.e. if a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act but is not registered, copyright protection will be forfeited after the design has been applied industrially and reproduced over fifty times.

Functional Designs Have to Be Registered – Designs of industrial/commercial articles (e.g., parts of machinery and consumer products) must be registered under the Designs Act to remain legally protected. Copyright Only for Exclusively Artistic Works – Copyright applies only if the work remains an artistic work (e.g., a sculpture or painting) and is not industrially utilised.

In Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025), the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the doctrine that unregistered industrial designs lose their copyright protection when they are applied to functional articles and produced in quantity. The Court reiterated its earlier position enunciated in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009), which is that there is no provision in the Designs and Copyright Act for twin protection, i.e., if a design is registrable under the Designs Act but has not been registered, copyright protection will be lost as soon as the design is applied industrially and reproduced more than fifty times. Functional designs need to be registered; i.e., industrial or commercial product designs, and product designs that constitute parts of machinery and household goods, need to be registered under the Designs Act to be protected in law. Copyright Only for Exclusively Artistic Works – Copyright only exists if the work continues to be an artwork (e.g., a painting or a sculpture) and is not industrially exploited.

Practical Implications to Stakeholders.

Artists and designers must critically review their protection strategy. Industrial-purpose designs should be registered under the Designs Act to prevent losing copyright protection after fifty copies are reproduced. On the other hand, firms need to check whether a design is registered or artistic to apply because unregistered industry designs are not always protected through copyright. This legal distinction prevents the misuse of copyright law to perpetuate monopolies on functional designs unnecessarily.

Conclusion:  The Supreme Court decisions establish a balanced IP regime through the clear demarcation of industrial and artistic designs. Designers must register commercially exploitable designs under the Designs Act, while copyright is retained for non-practical artistic work. This regime promotes innovation while ensuring fair competition in industrial markets. The players are incentivised to actively utilise design registrations on mass-produced products and reserve copyright actions for individual artistic work to stimulate legal protection.

In summary, the Practitioner and IP strategist should consider the legal implication of the judgment that clearly distinguish what can be registered as industrial design and what can be registered as copyright.