Copyright protects the expression of ideas. It gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to use their work, but they require, together with rights to reproduce the work.[1]

  • communicate the work to others; and
  • Create derivative works.
  • Copyright automatically attaches to certain types of artistic works, such as:



-sketches; and

-sculptural works.

For a piece to possess copyright protection, it should be original, and there should are some skill and effort involved in creating it. Copyright exists as before long as a piece is made. It does not require any registration process or fees. Copyright protection typically lasts longer than design protection. Usually, copyright lasts the life of the creator and seventy years. While the above looks to counsel that copyright is that the ideal protection to depend on for your style, it has certain disadvantages. Copyright, because the name suggests, focuses on protecting a creator from others ‘copying’ their work.

To claim infringement and enforce your rights, you would like to point out that associate degree alleged infringer has copied your original work.  If the alleged infringer had come back up with constant work independently, copyright would not be enforceable. This is not the case for design registration.


Design registration protects the new and distinctive visual options of a product’s look. For example, you’ll have designed a visually distinctive bottle or a remarkable shoe. You could register the look of the bottle or shoe. You could register the design of the bottle or shoe. It is worth its value noting that design registration solely protects the looks of the work and not the operation. However, you can still register a style although it's an operation related to it, like an ornamental belt. This can solely defend the look of the belt, not a novel operates.

Unlike copyright, you need to register your style with IP Australia. It can take several months to successfully register a design. To be eligible for registration, your style should be new and distinctive. It cannot be identical or substantially like another design. Unlike copyright, design registration requires you to pay a fee. You conjointly ought to pay the skilled fees of a professional if you would like one to assist you with registration. Once your design is registered, you have exclusive rights to commercially exploit it for up to ten years.  Not like copyright, design registration protects you against another person making an identical or identical style regardless of whether or not the infringer meant to repeat your work or not.




The litigator was expressed to be engaged worldwide within the business of producing, marketing, selling, and commerce of upholstery materials directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. It claimed that on all its upholstery materials n are written distinctive and original inventive works conceptualized and drawn by and on behalf of the litigator. The Plaintiff claimed that its artistic works enjoyed copyright protection in India because of the Berne and the Universal Copyright Conventions (India and the U.S. being members of the Conventions).

The upholstery materials factory-made and sold by the Defendants were declared in-tuned creative works that were identical, or colorable imitations of the Plaintiff’s creative works, and so constituted infringement of its copyright therein. In rejoinder, the Plaintiff pointed out that the definition of “design” under the new Designs Act, 2000 specifically excluded artistic works and thus did not apply to its artistic works within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957.



In other words, the Plaintiff argued that its upholstery fabric designs could not have been registered under the Designs Act, 2000 by virtue of the exclusion of artistic works and thus entitled to copyright protection under the Copyright Act. Consequently, it was stated that the defense under Section 15 of the Copyright Act did not apply. The comparison with the paintings of M.F. Hussain would be futile as the work in question, in the present case, is not a piece of art in the form of a painting.

There is no doubt that labor has been put and there is some innovativeness applied to put a particular configuration in place.  Such configuration is of the motifs and designs which by themselves would not be original.  The originality is being claimed based on the arrangements made.  What cannot be lost sight of is the very object with which such arrangements or works had been made.  The object is to put them to industrial use.  

An industrial process must be done to apply the work or configuration to the textile.  It is not one thing that should be framed and placed on the wall or would have any utility by itself. The 2 vital aspects ar the item with that it's created (which is industrial) and its inability to face by itself as a bit of art. In fact, it's no freelance existence of itself. In India, we've got special legislation governing the protection of various natures of rights. To that degree because the industrial styles are involved, the protection is provided beneath the Designs Act, 2000.

An important and relevant aspect is that every at a lower place the previous Act and additionally the new Act, material styles on textile product are categorised as correct material of style protection by inclusion as a specific class within the Rules framed below the Act. Furthermore, the legislative intent is additionally to be unbroken in mind that is to supply protection for a precise amount of your time for business exploitation.

Thus, nature of protection is kind of completely different for a creative work below the Copyright Act that is for the period of the author / creator + sixty years. This can be not therefore within the case of economic exploitation as below the styles Act and therefore the Patent Act, the amount is far lesser. Within the gift case, the configuration was created solely with the thing of golf stroke it to industrial /commercial use. Seeable of the on top of findings, the tribunal of city fired the suit.




[1] Section 14 in the Copyright Act, 1957.

[2] RFA (OS) NO.25/2006