Supreme Court sets a two-part test for when copyright gives way to design law
On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025 INSC 483), a dispute over engineering drawings for LNG semi-trailers. Inox had sued Cryogas and LNG Express, alleging its drawings were copied, partly by two former employees who joined the defendants. A court-appointed commissioner found identical spelling errors across the disputed drawings. The defendants argued the drawings were “designs” that had lost copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, which withdraws copyright once a work is industrially reproduced more than fifty times without design registration.
A commercial court dismissed Inox’s suit; the Gujarat High Court reversed this. Rather than deciding the classification itself, the Supreme Court laid down a two-pronged test, whether a work is “artistic” or a “design,” and if unclear, whether its dominant purpose is functional or aesthetic, and sent the matter back to trial.
Prada’s Kolhapuri-style sandals test the limits of India’s GI law
In June 2025, Prada showed leather sandals resembling Kolhapuri chappals at Milan Fashion Week, listed simply as “leather sandals” with no reference to their Indian origin. The design drew criticism from artisan communities and the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture.
Kolhapuri chappals received Geographical Indication status in July 2019, jointly held by Maharashtra’s LIDCOM and Karnataka’s LIDKAR, covering handcrafted chappals from eight specified districts. Following backlash, Prada acknowledged the design was inspired by Indian craftsmanship and said it remained at a pre-production stage.
A public interest litigation seeking compensation was filed in the Bombay High Court but was dismissed largely on procedural grounds, since the petitioners were not the registered GI proprietors. Legal commentators note that GI law protects the name “Kolhapuri chappal,” not the underlying design, leaving stylistic imitation largely unaddressed.
Delhi High Court holds Google liable for selling a rival’s trademark as an ad keyword
On May 22, 2026, the Delhi High Court ruled against Google in a case brought by Hindware Limited, permanently restraining Google from allowing “HINDWARE” to be used as a keyword on Google Ads and awarding Rs 30 lakh in damages. The dispute began in 2013, when Hindware found competitors Cera Sanitaryware and Grohe India had purchased “HINDWARE” as a keyword, causing their sponsored links to appear in Hindware-related searches. Both later settled, leaving Google as sole defendant.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that using a trademark as a backend keyword trigger counts as “use in advertising” under the Trade Marks Act, even without visible display, and rejected Google’s claim to passive intermediary status. Google has appealed to a Division Bench, which declined to stay the damages and set further hearing for July 24, 2026.
Maharashtra researchers patent portable composter for sugarcane trash
Researchers at Karmayogi Institute of Technology in Pandharpur, Solapur district, Maharashtra, have received a patent for a portable device that converts sugarcane trash into organic compost. Developed by Dr Anil Babar and Dr Somnath Lambe, the device targets a common regional practice, burning leftover sugarcane residue, which contributes to air pollution and harms beneficial soil microorganisms.
The composter processes sugarcane trash alongside other organic waste, such as dry leaves and weeds, into usable compost faster and more cheaply than conventional methods. The researchers say it is designed to discourage residue burning while raising soil organic carbon, improving fertility and water retention, and reducing farmers’ dependence on chemical fertilisers by supporting soil microbial activity.
(Note: this account relies primarily on ChiniMandi’s original reporting, as independent secondary coverage of this specific patent was limited.)
