Intellepedia's Top Industrial Design Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

This article compiles the most impactful industrial design law developments in India during 2025. It analyses landmark court decisions shaping design protection, novelty, infringement, and coexistence with other IP rights.

Industrial design protection, though often overlooked in discussions of intellectual property, plays a crucial role in safeguarding the aesthetic aspects of products. In order to appreciate the significance of design rights, one must understand that they occupy a unique position, distinct from both patents (which protect functional innovations) and copyrights (which protect artistic expression). The year 2025 brought several judicial pronouncements that clarified these boundaries, addressing the distinction between copyright and design protection, the coexistence of passing off remedies with registered design rights, novelty requirements and the impact of prior disclosure, the difference between design and patent infringement, and the application of the informed observer test.

This compilation brings together some of the most significant industrial design-related articles from Intellepedia that resonated with our readers over the past year. Each addresses principles and precedents that offer guidance for product designers, manufacturers, and IP practitioners navigating the design protection landscape. The articles are presented below with expanded summaries to facilitate understanding of these important developments.

Copyright Vs Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests

The Supreme Court of India established a two-pronged test for determining whether creative works receive copyright or design protection in a landmark judgment that provides clarity to a long-debated question. In Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited, the court addressed the overlap between India’s Copyright Act (1957) and Designs Act (2000). The case involved proprietary engineering drawings for cryogenic semi-trailers. One party claimed copyright protection, while the other argued the designs should fall under design law instead, which offers limited protection after fifty industrial reproductions.

The court established a methodical approach: First, determine if a work is ‘purely artistic’ (copyright-eligible) or a ‘design’ subjected to industrial processes. Second, if not qualifying as artistic work, apply a ‘functional utility’ test to assess whether protection exists under design law. The decision provides much-needed clarity distinguishing aesthetic expression from functional industrial application. For manufacturers and designers, this judgment offers a framework for understanding which form of protection applies to their creations, and underscores the importance of strategic decisions about IP protection at the design stage rather than after disputes arise.