Implication of Copyright and Design Law Interface in Section 15 Of the Copyright Act

(

Intellectual Property Rights are an array of rights provided to a person for his inventions, literary or artistic works, designs etc. However, grouping them in distinctive kinds such as Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Design etc can often lead to overlapping with regards to the owner’s subject matter in question. A person’s Intellectual Property may enjoy protection under several rights with wavering clauses to safeguard its legitimacy. One such scenario arises in regards to the artistic works of a person, being recognised under both Copyright as well as Design law, which might rob the author of getting protection for such artistic work under both the Acts. Every design has its roots from some artistic work. The only dilemma is when and how it becomes worth differentiating so as to aptly decrypt its meaning without stripping the author off his Intellectual property rights over the same.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Before we indulge in the legality of the relationship between Copyright and Design Laws, it is crucial to be acquainted by specific terms such as “artistic work” and “design” along with their interpretation in different statutes related to Intellectual Property:

According to Section 2(c) of the Copyrights Act, 1957 (herein, Copyrights Act), “artistic work includes any painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving, photograph and works related to architecture or any other artistic craftsmanship, irrespective of their artistic quality.”[1]

“Design” as defined under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (herein, Designs Act) includes features that particularly appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. The provisions of this section distinctly mention that all such features are exclusive of any artistic work as per Section 2(c) of the Copyrights Act.[2]

Such exclusion of artistic work from the term “design” is only till it becomes commercially utilized. Once artistic works such as motifs, patterns etc are applied to products (particularly sarees, wallpapers, etc) by way of industrial procedures for commercial use, or are reproduced more than 50 times, they become “designs” under the Designs Act, 2000. This is governed by Section 15 of the Copyrights Act which says that the moment when a “design” gets registered under Designs Act, it ceases to gain any protection under Copyrights Act. Furthermore, according to §15(2)[3], an author loses all copyright protection on an unregistered “design” which has been applied to an article when such article has been reproduced 50 or more times for any commercial purpose by industrial procedures.

Copyright protection is provided to an author for his artistic work for a period of 60 years from the date of death of such author[4], however protection of a design under Designs Act is for 10 years from the date of its registration, which can be extended for additional 5 years.[5] Thus, the main purpose of clearing this overlap between copyright and design protection through Section 15 is to prevent any person from misusing the rights granted to them for a longer period than what is necessary.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION: CASE LAWS ANALYSIS

Section 15 had been aptly interpreted in the case of Microfibres Inc. & Ors. vs. Girdhar and Co. & Ors.[6] This case became the foundation for many other judgements regarding overlap between Copyright and Design Laws. Microfibres Inc. was an upholstery fabrics manufacturer claiming Copyright protection for their fabric designs. The main issue that the court faced while deciding the rulings was whether such fabrics designs be protected under the Copyrights Act as “artistic work” or declared exclusive under Designs Act, 2000 thereby categorizing them under industrial designs. Court, while distinguishing “artistic work” from “design”, held that the moment any artistic work is commercially used through industrial procedures, it loses its Copyright protection and can only be further protected under the ambit of Designs Act[7]. Additionally, “intention” was the main issue around which the decision of the Court revolved. It stated that it is immaterial to consider the artist’s intention while categorizing the kind of protection that the work shall be governed under. This judgement was crucial in asserting the prevention of a Dual Judgement i.e., no copyright protection shall be given to artistic works having commercial utilisation by way of industrial processes, however such works can be protected under Designs Act if registered. Since the Microfibres Inc. failed to register their fabric designs in India, their copyright protection was subsequently disqualified.

Similarly, in Ritika Pvt. Ltd. vs. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.[8], claim on the fashion designs by the Plaintiff for a renowned brand “Ritu Kumar” were rejected to be protected by Copyright. Keeping in view the Microfibres Case3, the court held that since the designs had been produced on a mass scale of more than 50, they no longer enjoyed protection under Copyright Act. And since no registration under the Designs Act had been done by the Plaintiff, the court pronounced judgement in favour of the defendant and barred the Plaintiff from any Copyright protection.

Another case law that stands its ruling in regards to Section 15 of the Copyrights Act is Holland Co. LP vs. S.P. Industries[9]. Plaintiff’s request for an injunction against the Defendant was dismissed by the court on grounds that the ATL system used by Holland Co. was for industrial purpose that produced more than 50 units, and thus copying of the same by S.P. Industries was not protected under Copyright, unless it gains registration under the Designs Act8.

Similar rulings had been given in cases like Jagdamba Impex vs. Tristar products Pvt. Ltd. [10]and Rajesh Masrani vs. Tahiliani Designs Pvt. Ltd.[11] pertaining to Section 15(2) of the Copyrights Act4.

However, a new perspective was established by the court in Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Aarya 24kt & Ors.[12]. It was held that, while keeping in mind the notion that an artistic work is to be protected under Designs Act if resulted in mass production for industrial use, it must also be taken into consideration that if the artistic work has no functional application, and limits its purpose to aesthetics, it would be regarded as a Copyright protection rather than simply being restricted to “designs”. Thus, the court agreed with the Plaintiff and ruled in its favour.

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE INTERFACE

The policy rationale behind the overlapping between Copyright and Design Laws is to:

1. Avert the unending monopolies

Permitting life-long protection to artistic works via Copyright protection would give rise to anti-competitive monopolies, thereby stripping the markets off innovative skill developments and easy accessibility.

2. Reassure judicious Design registration

Section 15(2) encourages the artists to register their artistic works under Designs Act, in order to provide a clear distinction between works for solely artistic purpose and those for commercial purpose.

3. Distinguish between art and commerce

It is important to have a clarified distinction between works intended for artistic purposes and those for commercial purposes and section 15 efficiently makes this boundary for better analysis of a person’s Intellectual Property rights.

4. Work in public interest

In order for designs to enter market in an effective manner for proper utilisation and repeated usage, granting short-term rights to designs by way of section 15 has rendered efficiency.

KEY RECOMMENTATIONS AND WAY FORWARD

It is easy to bring about legislations for effective and judicious working of the legal system. However, at times, it becomes necessary to deal with its practical application. Certain reforms and policy aspects have to be taken into consideration to protect public interest while maintaining a balance between safeguarding artistic approaches and boosting its industrial application.

Indian Laws should provide certain protection towards unregistered industrial designs by allowing interim copyright protection for a few years to such artistic works till the time they get recognised under Designs Act. This would provide legal protection to budding creators. Additionally, awareness should be provided to all sorts of artists dealing with industrial or artistic works regarding design registration and applicability of Section 15 to ensure fairness. Apart from this, evolution is needed in the area of IP system with regards to digital artworks, NFT-based designs etc to accommodate modern judicial efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Every design has its roots from some artistic work. The only dilemma is when and how it becomes worth differentiating so as to aptly decrypt its meaning judicial interpretation without stripping the author off his Intellectual property rights over the same. Section 15 of Copyrights Act underlines a well-defined interface between protection of artistic works and designs for both aesthetic and commercial purposes. As long as an artist is limited to artistic representation of his work, he enjoys protection under Copyright Laws and the moment it gains industrial application, it required registration under the Designs Act, thereby protecting the artist from any overlap that could take away his IP rights.