A naukri.com initiative
Spicyip
1M
350
Image Credit: Spicyip
Assessing the Cryogas Judgment from the lens of Section 52(1)(w)
- The Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited judgment missed an opportunity to interpret Section 52(1)(w) of the Copyright Act.
- Section 52(1)(w) allows making 3D objects from 2D technical drawings for functional parts of machines or devices.
- This provision was rarely explored but was supported in cases like GE Power India Ltd. vs. NHPC Limited and Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nirtech Pvt. Ltd.
- In the Cryogas case, Section 52(1)(w) was not utilized despite being applicable for making 3D functional objects.
- The primary focus was on proving the drawings as a design, triggering concerns under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
- The arguendo scenario questions if INOX drawings have copyright and if Section 52(1)(w) could help Cryogas.
- The interpretation of whether cryogenic storage tanks are functional parts or devices is crucial in applying Section 52(1)(w).
- The lack of clarity on the nature of engineering drawings for tanks may have led to the non-application of this section.
- Advocates suggest this provision does not permit creating the entire device; rather, it focuses on functional parts.
- The court's judgment highlights the ambiguity between design and copyright laws, suggesting the need for clarity in retrial.
Read Full Article
21 Likes
For uninterrupted reading, download the app