Inox sued the two companies in 2018, claiming it has put in a lot of effort in design and manufacturing, in which the trailer and semi-trailer installed the internal parts of the cryogenic storage tank and distribution system to transport industrial gas, liquefied natural gas, and more.
The judge led by Justice Suryakant dismissed Inox India’s appeal while examining “the internal synergy that exists between the changes in IP law and the two independent legislation, namely the Design Act and the Copyright Act.”
It insists on the HC decision, requiring the Commercial Court (Vadodara Court) to rule on Inox’s pending request within two months, requiring restrictions on freezing and LNG violations of its design.
The top courts also formulated two methods of domination to determine whether works qualify for protection by the Design Act. The test should consider whether the work involved is purely a “work of art” entitled to be protected under the Copyright Act, or is it a “design” derived from such original work of art, and conducts an industrial process in accordance with the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. In addition, the test must also see if such work is not eligible for copyright protection, then the test of the “Functional Utility” must be applied to determine its primary purpose and then determine whether it is eligible for design protection under the “Design Act”.
SC requires the trial court to conduct a trial based on the tests it stipulates and to identify the true nature of proprietary engineering drawings, as well as other related IP infringement lawsuits asserted by Inox because “it has waste a lot of judicial time on this issue. “Design” under the “Design” Act of 2000. However, regardless of the design, CEPL and LEPL seek to deny the lawsuit, deeming that the copyright will not belong to any registration or design that can be registered or registered under the Design Act, once it has been repeated fifty times by the copyrighted industrial process, i.e., the copyright owner or any authorized owner or any authorized licensee. They believe that Inox lost the copyright of the above drawings due to the failure to register the Design Act. In addition, LEPL asserts
In 2024, the Vadodara Court rejected Inox’s lawsuit. Even the High Court directed a new trial in the case.
