District Court, Vadodara (Commercial): In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), Inox India Private Limited (‘Inox’) alleged that Cryogas Equipment Private Limited (‘Cryogas’) infringed its copyright in proprietary engineering drawings, intellectual property, and literary works related to cryogenic and LNG semi-trailers. Inox sought a permanent injunction restraining Cryogas from using, reproducing, or exploiting its engineering drawings, proprietary designs, and technical know-how. The Single Judge Bench of Priyanka Agarwal, J. held that Inox had established a strong prima facie case by satisfying the trinity test for a temporary injunction, particularly noting the substantial similarity between Inox’s drawings and those of Cryogas, along with evidence that former employees of Inox, now working with Cryogas, had copied the drawings, including spelling errors.
The Court held that refusal to grant interim protection at this stage would result in irreparable loss to Inox, it would enable the Cryogas, who had no rightful claim to the said intellectual property—to unlawfully benefit from the Inox goodwill, without any legal deterrence. Hence, the Court restrained Cryogas from infringing Inox’s intellectual property rights and from misusing its confidential information, until the final disposal of Trade Mark suit.
Background of dispute between Inox India and Cryogas
Cryogas was engaged in the manufacturing of non-static Cryogenic and LNG Semi-trailers. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court which had dismissed the Cryogas application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780 . The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to decide Inox application for ad interim injunction within two months, applying a two-pronged test under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to determine whether the subject work qualified for protection under the Copyright Act or the Designs Act, 2000.
Inox India claimed it had been engaged in manufacturing cryogenic storage and transport tanks for over 25 years and had acquired proprietary IP, know-how, and technical drawings through research and acquisition, including from the U.S.-based CVA in 2009. It alleged that Cryogas had copied its proprietary engineering drawings and literary work, which were original ‘artistic works’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act.
Inox discovered in August 2018 that Cryogas had ventured into manufacturing similar LNG trailers and had applied for PESO approval using drawings allegedly copied from Inox, even retaining spelling errors from its original documents. Inox contended that this constituted copyright infringement and misuse of confidential information.
Cryogas countered that the drawings were not artistic or literary works under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the Copyright Act, were based on standard engineering codes, and were already in the public domain. They also argued that Inox’s own use of the drawings in mass production—over 50 units—barred copyright protection under Section 15(2). Cryogas claimed its designs were independently sourced from U.S.-based designer Ron Baker and asserted that it was only involved in storage and transport, not manufacturing, and thus not liable.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the primary contention raised by Cryogas was regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate the dispute relating to the alleged breach of contract and confidentiality clauses. However, it was undisputed that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain Inox’s claim for infringement of copyright in its intellectual property.
As for the Inox’s pleadings concerning breach of contract and breach of confidence against Cryogas, the Court observed that Order II Rule 3 of the CPC permits Inox to combine multiple causes of action in one suit against the same defendants, or jointly against multiple defendants, if those causes arise from the same transaction or series of transactions. The purpose of this provision is to avoid multiplicity of litigation on related claims. Since the disputes in this case arose from the same series of transactions, the Court held that it was fully competent to entertain the composite suit for copyright infringement and breach of confidence and contract.
The Court noted that the principal claim of Inox was based on copyright, which admittedly existed in the Proprietary Engineering Drawings. Cryogas’s argument, relying on Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, was found to be unsustainable at that stage. This was not a case where a “design” existed in the inner vessel that was not visible to the eye. Rather, Inox claimed that the LNG and related equipment for storage and transportation on Indian roads required highly specialized technology. This indicated that Inox’s product served a functional purpose rather than offering any aesthetic appeal.
Keeping in mind the distinction between copyright in an “artistic work” under the Copyright Act and copyright in a “design” that is registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act, and applying the two-pronged test laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court proceeded to examine the rival contentions of the parties for the purpose of deciding the present application.
As regards the first test, the Court observed that it was necessary to determine whether the Proprietary Engineering Drawings qualified as “artistic work” under the Copyright Act. A perusal of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act made it clear that drawings are included within the definition of “artistic work.” Furthermore, Section 2(d) of the Designs Act specifically excludes “artistic work” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act from the scope of “design.” Therefore, based on the statutory definition, Inox Proprietary Engineering Drawings prima facie qualified as “artistic work” and were thus entitled to protection under the Copyright Act.
Additionally, “literary work” is defined under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act to include computer programmes, tables, and compilations, including computer databases. Literary work may be expressed through words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols. Upon examining the plaintiff’s Proprietary Engineering Drawings, the Court noted that apart from containing drawings qualifying as “artistic work,” the drawings also included tables, textual descriptions, and specifications relating to the inner vessel of the tanks. Therefore, these drawings prima facie qualified as “literary work” as well.
At this preliminary stage, the Court viewed that Inox Proprietary Engineering Drawings could be considered both “artistic” and “literary” works within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, as they involved artistic expression while also conveying technical information in a structured and communicative form.
The Court highlighted that it was clearly discernible that, although the drawings may have followed international codes and standards, the process of preparing or developing such drawings necessarily involved the independent application of mind. It was not, and could not be, a mere exercise in copying or performing a cut-and-paste operation.
Moreover, the Court noted that Cryogas failed to adduce any preliminary evidence to support their claim that the impugned drawings had been developed through scientific and technological efforts. In contrast, Inox has made detailed submissions regarding its business operations—initially in the production of industrial gases and subsequently in the manufacturing of Cryogenic Storage Tanks and Distribution Systems. Inox has also produced documents substantiating these claims, as noted in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, the mere fact that Cryogas had also obtained PESO approval for the impugned drawings did not assist their defence in a copyright infringement action.
Consequently, the Court formed a prima facie opinion that the Inox’s claim over its Proprietary Engineering Drawings, as original “artistic works,” stood established to the extent necessary for deciding the application for interim relief. Accordingly, Inox was held to be entitled to interim protection under the Copyright Act.
While examining whether any “design” could be said to be derived from the original “artistic work,” the Court noted that Inox did not assert the existence of any “design” in its products, namely, Cryogenic Semi-trailers—primarily the LNG Storage and Distribution Systems mounted on LNG Semi-trailers. Inox merely stated that these products were non-static Cryogenic Tanks developed based on its Proprietary Engineering Drawings and were specifically designed for the transportation of industrial gases, taking into account the conditions of Indian roads.
In the above circumstances, upon applying the first test, the Court opined that Inox Proprietary Engineering Drawings were, prima facie, purely “artistic works” entitled to interim protection under the Copyright Act, and not “designs” derived from such artistic works through the application of an industrial process. Since the inner vessel lacked any visual appeal, such protection did not appear to be diminished by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. However, the Court noted that this determination could only be conclusively ascertained after trial.
With respect to the second test, the Court observed that the functionality test is applicable when a work fails to qualify for copyright protection. In light of its findings under the first test, the Court held that it could not be said that the work in question was ineligible for such protection. Nevertheless, even upon applying the functionality test, the Court was of the prima facie view that the Inox’s products served a functional purpose that extended beyond any visual features appealing to the eye. Thus, the Court found that the LNG Storage and Distribution Systems mounted on LNG Semi-trailers, as well as the inner vessels, served purely functional purposes. Accordingly, neither product contained any visual features that would appeal to the eye, thereby excluding them from the definition of a “design.”
The Court concluded that Inox had satisfied the trinity test for the grant of a temporary injunction by prima facie establishing the subsistence of copyright in its Proprietary Engineering Drawings, which were entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. In view of the substantial similarity between Inox’s engineering drawings and the impugned drawings—along with the fact that defendant 3 and 4, former employees of Inox, are now employed with Cryogas and have allegedly copied the drawings, including replicating spelling errors—the Court opined that Inox made out a strong prima facie case.
In these circumstances, the balance of convenience was also found to lie in favour of the Inox who, having developed the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, was entitled to enjoy the fruits of its intellectual effort. On the other hand, Cryogas failed to demonstrate that the impugned drawings had either been independently developed by them or were available in the public domain in a manner that would disentitle Inox from seeking relief claimed.
Therefore, the Court held that refusal to grant interim protection at this stage would result in irreparable loss to Inox, it would enable the Cryogas, who had no rightful claim to the said intellectual property—to unlawfully benefit from the Inox goodwill, without any legal deterrence.
[Inox India Private Limited v. Cryogas Private Limited, Trade Mark Suit No. 3 of 2019, decided on 11-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Plaintiff: Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, learned Counsel with Mr.J.B.Verma
For Defendant: Mr. A.V. Sumant, Mr. S.N.Mehta, Mr. P.J.Shah
