An Indian Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying the business of publishing Law Books. It publishes and prints various books in the field of law. Among many books published by them Law Reports is one of t

Section 2(d) of the Design Act, 2000 defines the term 'Design' and expressly excludes "any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957" from its scope. Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act defines an "Artistic Work" to include any work of artistic workmanship. Therefore, an artistic work does not fall within the definition of a Design under the Design Act, 2000. Section 15 of the Copyright Act declares that a copyright does not subsist under the Act in any design which is registered under the Design Act. Furthermore, the said section declares that "Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the Design Act, 2000, but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright, or, with his license, by any other person." Reading together the aforesaid provisions in the Copyright Act and the Design Act, it may be concluded that an artistic work will not fall within the definition of a Design under the Design Act, 2000, but if it is related to a Design, then they can be protected under the Design Act and not under the Copyright Act. In the case of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar and Co. (2006) (32) PTC 157 (Del.) Delhi High Court's judgement in the case aimed at providing a clear vision to this overlapping. Microfibres Inc., a company specializing in upholstery fabrics, accused Girdhar and Co. the defendants of copying its artistic designs applied to fabrics. The core of the case revolved around the issue that whether the designs, once industrially applied and reproduced over 50 times, could still be protected under copyright law? The DHC ruled that artistic works which are industrially applied and reproduced more than 50 times lose their copyright protection under the Copyright Act, emphasizing that such designs should instead be registered under The Designs Act to receive protection. Hence the Division Bench provided that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act clearly states that designs reproduced more than 50 times are not protected by copyright and must be registered under The Designs Act for protection. The essence of such provision is that if a design registrable under the Designs Act, but has not so been registered, the Design would continue to enjoy copyright protection under the Act so long as the threshold limit of its application on an article by an industrial process for more than 50 times is reached. But once that limit is crossed, it would lose its copyright protection under the Copyright Act. Such interpretation harmonizes the Copyright and Designs Act. In the case of Bulgari S.P.A vs Prerna Rajpal Trading as The Amaris Flagship [CS(COMM) 341/2014] Bulgari is a renowned Italian Luxury Brand, well known for its exquisite craftsmanship and magnificent jewellery collection. They sued Prerna Rajpal (The Amaris Flagship Store) for allegedly copying the style of Serpenti Necklace and B.Zerol Jewellery Collection. Bulgari argued that its 'Serpenti Ocean Treasure Necklace' was protected by Copyright Act as it is an original artistic piece. Bulgari asserted that the defendant being Amaris Flagship copied their products, and marketed them as their own. The Delhi High Court after examining the evidence, noted similarities in structure and visual appearance between the contested designs and granted an injunction against Amaris for infringing on Bulgari's rights. In addition, the court agreed with Bulgari's contention that the contested design, being handcrafted and reproduced fewer than 50 times with not been produced by any industrial process, it did not fall under Section 15(2). Therefore, it remained protected by copyright. Therefore, the ruling reinforced the provision that the limit of 50 reproductions does not apply to handcrafted designs, and such designs can continue to be protected under The Copyright Law if they are not used for commercial productions or generated in mass. Also, the Delhi High Court in Aga Medical Corporation vs Mr. Faisal Kapadi And Anr [2003 (26) PTC 349 Del] has already ruled that if a material is capable of being registered under the designs Act but has not been registered than that material cannot have copyright protection. Having said that, it is clear that a design can get copyright protection but that protection ceases to exist once such design is applied to an article and the same article is produced more than 50 times through an industrial process.