https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768963 The Court explained that the overlap between copyrightable artistic works and registrable designs under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act requires a two-step, fact-sensitive inquiry: first, whether the work is an original artistic work or a design derived from it and applied industrially; second, whether its dominant character is governed by functional utility, visual appeal and industrial application. It also held that a plaint alleging copyright infringement in engineering drawings cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely on an assumption that the drawings are registrable designs, because the applicability of Section 15(2) and the copyright-design distinction ordinarily raise mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence and trial. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768963 The Court explained that the overlap between copyrightable artistic works and registrable designs under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act requires a two-step, fact-sensitive inquiry: first, whether the work is an original artistic work or a design derived from it and applied industrially; second, whether its dominant character is governed by functional utility, visual appeal and industrial application. It also held that a plaint alleging copyright infringement in engineering drawings cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely on an assumption that the drawings are registrable designs, because the applicability of Section 15(2) and the copyright-design distinction ordinarily raise mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence and trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768963