Industrial Design vs. Copyright Protection: Understanding Key Differences in the Intellectual Property Framework

Introduction

A number of subfields within the field of intellectual property (IP) law are dedicated to safeguarding the inventive and creative works of both people and businesses. Because of their similar functions in preserving artistic and aesthetic expressions, industrial design and copyright protection are frequently confused. But these types of protection have different functions, are governed by separate laws, and provide various levels of protection for different lengths of time. By highlighting significant legal concerns, recent rulings, and expert opinions, as well as by examining difficulties and proposing potential paths forward, this study seeks to clarify the legal, practical, and judicial differences between industrial design rights and copyright protection.

Background and Legal Framework

Protecting a product's shape, configuration, surface pattern, or ornamentation is the main function of industrial design protection. The Designs Act of 2000 governs it in India, and the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks is in charge of its administration. New or unique designs that haven't been published before and can be used in an article are covered by the protection.

However, under the 1957 Copyright Act, original works of literature, art, music, and theater are protected by copyright. It exists naturally when the work is created and endures for the author's lifetime plus a further 60 years in India. Though it excludes designs mainly meant for industrial use, copyright has a wider reach since it covers both functional and non-functional creative creations.

Legal Concerns and Disparities in Doctrine

Determining whether a design used on an article is a registrable industrial design or a copyrightable artistic work presents a significant legal challenge. To address this, the Indian legal system uses the idea of "mutual exclusivity." The overlap is limited by Section 15 of the Copyright Act, which states that an artistic work loses copyright protection if it is applied to more than 50 copies by an industrial method unless it is registered under the Designs Act.

Furthermore, unless they satisfy patentability requirements, functional designs—those that enhance a product's usefulness—are not protected under either system. The functional-aesthetic distinction, which courts frequently find difficult to understand, is called into doubt by this.

Judicial Trends and Key Judgments

The relationship between design and copyright has been contested in a number of issues handled by Indian jurisprudence. An example of a landmark case is:

The Delhi High Court ruled in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009) that an artistic work loses its copyright protection when it is replicated in more than fifty industrial copies. The court clarified that the purpose of Section 15 is to stop the same design from being protected by both copyright and design laws.

Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2016): In this instance, the court upheld the notion that an artistic design loses its copyright protection if it is commercially reproduced beyond allowable bounds without being registered under the Designs Act.

For creators who want to get dual protection, these rulings have established a more regulated yet more orderly route.

Expert Analysis

The strict reciprocal exclusivity between design and copyright has frequently caused anxiety among legal experts and intellectual property practitioners. Professor Shamnad Basheer claims that hybrid works that conflate industrial design and art are not acceptable under the existing framework. Pravin Anand, an intellectual property lawyer, has also contended that this distinction may lead to "legal uncertainty" for designers whose creations don't cleanly fall into one category.

Globally, nations like as Australia and the United Kingdom provide more flexible overlapping protection regimes. This has spurred discussion about whether Indian law need to embrace a more comprehensive framework for intellectual property protection, particularly for fashion and interior designers whose creations straddle the line between practicality and beauty.

Challenges or Gaps

Creators' ignorance of the ramifications of registering a design as opposed to depending on copyright is one of the biggest obstacles. By generating unregistered works in large quantities, many designers unwittingly give up their copyright rights. Furthermore, lengthy litigation is frequently the result of the judiciary's inability to clearly discern between simply artistic aspects and industrial uses.

Additionally, there is no dedicated tribunal for design-related issues in the Indian legal system, which overburden normal civil courts and delays conflict resolution. Additionally, the Designs Act has less deterrents against infringement and weaker enforcement procedures than copyright.

Suggestions or Way Forward

The following ideas are put up to close the gap between copyright and design protections:

• Harmonization of Laws: Make changes to the Designs Act and the Copyright Act to permit concurrent protections when appropriate, particularly for hybrid works.

• Awareness Campaigns: Government organizations and trade associations ought to hold IP rights education sessions for designers, craftspeople, and manufacturer.

• Specialized Tribunals: To guarantee prompt, well-informed verdicts, set up IP benches or tribunals especially for industrial design disputes.

• Establish rules or jurisprudential precepts that will allow courts to consistently implement the reciprocal exclusivity rule without violating the rights of creators in order to promote judicial clarity.

• Increased Penalties for Infringement: By implementing harsher sanctions and compensation plans, the Designs Act's enforcement procedures will be strengthened.

Conclusion

While protecting creative expression is the goal of both copyright and industrial design protection, there are significant differences in their application, length, and scope. Indian IP law's reciprocal exclusivity concept aims to preserve equilibrium, but it frequently leaves designers in a limbo, especially when their creations blur the boundaries between functionality and art. India can create a more complex and adaptable intellectual property regime that effectively fosters innovation and creativity in the twenty-first century by implementing law reforms, improving judicial clarity, and raising public awareness.

References

• The Designs Act, 2000 (India)

• The Copyright Act, 1957 (India)

• Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., 2009 (Del HC)

• Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (Del HC)

• Shamnad Basheer, "Interfacing Copyright and Design Law," NUJS Law Review

• Pravin Anand, "Design and Copyright: Legal Tussles and the Way Forward," Indian IP Forum Journal

• WIPO, “Guide to Industrial Design Protection,” 2020

• Anand & Anand, “Designs Law in India: Key Developments,” Legal Update 2023

DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Vibhu Patel, trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.