4 judgments of the Calcutta High Court, the Madras High Court and 2 other courts applying Copyright Act s.2(c), from 2023–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.
Five appeals concerning graphical user interfaces allowed together, the Court holding that the authorities had failed to apply the correct legal tests to GUI design applications. It noted a WIPO survey finding that 92 per cent of jurisdictions already protect GUIs under design law, and comparable positions in the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong and the United States, and observed that the definitions of design, article and industrial process require clarification so that GUIs are recognised as products of industrial design activity, which would also align India with the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. Pending such clarification by the legislature or the Controller, the Court held that nothing prevents GUIs being registered case by case under sections 2(a) and 2(d), provided they are properly identified with an article and the design elements are not purely function driven.
Suit for copyright infringement in tractor engineering drawings dismissed after trial, each party bearing its own costs. The Court held on the evidence that the drawings met the requirement of originality under the Copyright Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to be recognised as their author, and on that footing rejected the objection that the suit failed for non-joinder of the foreign parent. The suit nevertheless failed on the critical question of copying: the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant had copied its drawings, and the remedies claimed for copyright infringement therefore did not arise.
Appeals dismissed and the rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application upheld. The Supreme Court held that whether an original artistic work falls within the meaning of "design" under the Designs Act cannot be answered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, which involves only a prima facie inquiry into whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. Ascertaining the true nature of the proprietary engineering drawings is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial. The Court set out a test for distinguishing an artistic work protected by copyright from a design registrable under the Designs Act, and directed the Commercial Court to apply it, taking an Occam's Razor approach, and to assess separately the claims on literary works, confidential information and know-how.
Summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC read with Rule 27 of the IPD Rules, and the suit decreed with a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 5,00,000 and actual costs. The Local Commissioner had found 253 counterfeit items at the defendant's premises, and the defendant's own invoices showed sales of more than Rs. 29,00,000. The written statement contained bare averments unsupported by documents and the defendant stopped appearing. Following Su-Kam Power Systems, the Court held that trial is no longer the default in commercial suits and that a summary judgment may be given where the defendant has no realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success.
