Introduction
What happens when a photograph of a seemingly unremarkable pump assembly becomes the center of a legal dispute? In A. Ruthramoorthy and Ors. v. P. Moorthy and Ors[1]., the Madras High Court was called upon to examine not the mechanical object itself, but rather its photographic representation which ignited a legal dispute over the limits of intellectual property protection. A copyright registration for an image titled ‘Artistic Work Photograph of Pump Assembly for Air Compressor’ prompted a legal challenge, raising a crucial question: can copyright protection and design registration coexist for the same subject matter? The Petitioners firmly argued in the negative, invoking Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to contend that a registered design cannot simultaneously enjoy copyright protection. The Respondent, however, maintained that the photograph in question was an independent artistic work, distinct from the registered design. The case thus unfolded as a nuanced examination of statutory interpretation, legislative intent, and judicial precedent highlighting the complex interplay between copyright and design regimes in Indian intellectual property law.
Background
The case revolves around the intersection of copyright and design law in India, focusing on the interpretation of Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The dispute arose when the first Respondent obtained copyright registration for a photograph of a pump assembly, classifying it as an artistic work. The Petitioners sought rectification of this registration, arguing that the pump assembly had already been registered as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, and thus could not simultaneously enjoy copyright protection. They invoked Section 15(1), which prohibits copyright from subsisting in a design that is registered under the Designs Act, aiming to prevent overlapping Intellectual Property Rights. Section 15(2) further limits copyright protection for designs that are capable of registration but not registered, once they are commercially reproduced beyond fifty units. The legal debate hinged on whether the photograph in question qualified as a ‘design’ under the Designs Act, which defines designs as features applied to articles by an industrial process that appeal solely to the eye while expressly excluding artistic works. In contrast, the Copyright Act includes photographs within the definition of artistic works and does not exclude designs. The Court examined whether the photograph of the pump assembly constituted a design or remained an independent artistic work.
The Court concluded that the photograph did not satisfy the statutory definition of a design, as it was not a feature applied industrially to an article, but rather a creative representation taken by the Respondent. Relying on legislative intent, statutory interpretation, and judicial precedents including recent Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that Section 15 applies only to designs as defined under the Designs Act, and not to distinct artistic works like photographs. As a result, the copyright registration in the photograph was deemed valid and enforceable, leading to the dismissal of the petition seeking its cancellation.
Facts of the case
* The first Respondent applied for copyright registration of an artistic work titled ‘Artistic Work Photograph of Pump Assembly for Air Compressor’ on 2 May 2023, which was granted under Registration no. No.A-146894/2023
* The Petitioners challenged the validity of this registration and sought rectification of the Register of Copyrights, citing Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
* The Petitioners contended that the same pump assembly had already been registered as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, via Design No. 325033-01, effective from 26 December 2019, and thus copyright could not subsist in the same work.
* The Copyright Office had initially raised this objection in its examination report dated 8 June 2023 but later accepted the Respondent's reply (dated 6 July 2023) and proceeded to grant registration.
* The first Respondent argued that the registered work is a photograph, which qualifies as an artistic work under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, and not the pump assembly itself, which was registered as a design.
* The Respondent also clarified that a patent obtained by them related to a different invention (a pump with a single outlet), whereas the design registration pertained to a dual outlet pump assembly.
Contentions presented by the petitioner and respondent
The Petitioners argued that the copyright registration for the ‘Photograph of Pump Assembly for Air Compressor’ must be rectified under Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, since the same pump assembly had already been registered as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, effective from 26.12.2019. They emphasized that Section 15(1) prohibits copyright from subsisting in any registered design, and cited judgments including Kiran Shoes Manufacturers[2], Microfibres[3], and the Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment[4] to support the position that once a design is registered, it cannot simultaneously enjoy copyright protection. They further contended that the Respondent’s to the Copyright Office’s objection misconstrued the law and noted that the Respondent had also obtained a patent for the same article, implying an improper overlap of Intellectual Property Rights.
The Respondent submitted that the copyright registration pertained only to a photograph of the pump assembly and not the assembly itself, which is the subject of design registration. They argued that a photograph is an artistic work under the Copyright Act and distinct from a design as defined under the Designs Act, which involves features applied by an industrial process and judged solely by the eye. They pointed out that the Copyright Office accepted this distinction and granted registration. Additionally, they clarified that the patent obtained related to a different invention a borewell foot valve with a single outlet, unlike the dual outlet design already registered thus refuting any overlap. Therefore, they maintained that Section 15 was inapplicable, and the petition deserved to be dismissed.
Legal analysis
At the heart of the case lies the interpretation of Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which governs the overlap between copyright and design protection in India. Section 15(1) states that copyright shall not subsist under the Copyright Act in any design registered under the Designs Act, 2000, thereby limiting IP protection for such works to the design regime. Section 15(2) further restricts copyright protection in designs capable of registration but not registered terminating such protection once the design is industrially reproduced more than fifty times. The statutory intent behind these provisions is to prevent dual protection and extended monopoly through copyright for creations intended to be protected under the more time-limited design regime.
A crucial aspect of this interpretation is the statutory definition of ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, which includes features like shape, configuration, or pattern applied by an industrial process and judged solely by the eye but explicitly excludes ‘artistic works’ as defined in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. Notably, the Copyright Act defines ‘artistic work’ to include photographs, paintings, drawings, etc., without excluding designs, thereby creating a potential overlap. In the present case, the Court evaluated whether a photograph of a pump assembly, registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, constituted a ‘design’ under the Designs Act.
The Court concluded that the photograph was not a design, as it was not applied to an article by an industrial process and lacked the functional or visual characteristics necessary under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. Referring to key precedents including Kiran Shoes Manufacturers, Microfibres Inc., and Cryogas Equipment, the Court applied the two-pronged test formulated by the Supreme Court to distinguish between pure artistic works and functional designs. The test considers whether the work is purely artistic or has been subjected to industrial application and functional utility. Since the photograph in question failed both tests, the Court held that Section 15 was inapplicable, upholding the copyright registration. The ruling reinforces that artistic works like photographs, even if representing industrial products, are distinct from designs unless they meet the technical and industrial thresholds under the Designs Act, and cannot be denied copyright protection merely due to visual overlap.
Court’s reasoning and conclusion
The Court’s reasoning focused on the nuanced interpretation of Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and its intersection with the design protection framework under the Designs Act, 2000. The Petitioners argued that the copyright registration for a photograph of a pump assembly was invalid, as the pump assembly had already been registered as a design.
However, the Court clarified that the subject of the copyright was the photograph itself, not the pump assembly. The Court emphasized that under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, photographs qualify as artistic works regardless of artistic quality, and that such works are explicitly excluded from the definition of ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. As the photograph was not a design applied to an article by an industrial process, it did not fall within the scope of Section 15. The Court also applied the two-pronged test laid down in Cryogas Equipment, which distinguishes between pure artistic works and industrially applied designs. Since the photograph had not been reproduced by an industrial process nor exhibited functional utility, it remained a copyrightable artistic work. Therefore, the bar under Section 15 did not apply, and the copyright registration was held valid. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the legal distinction between artistic work and industrial design.
[The author is an Associate in IPR practice at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys]
[1] MANU/TN/2309/2025 (10 June 2025 - MADHC).
[2] Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v. Registrar of Copyrights & Anr. [MANU/DE/0937/2012]
[3] Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar and Co. and Anr. [MANU/DE/0647/2009]
[4] Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Ors. [MANU/SC/0487/2025]
