Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd v. Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd.

In the world of tiles and surfaces, a striking design can set a brand apart—until a competitor copies it and sells it as their own. But what happens when the original creator never registered that design where it truly mattered? This case from the Madras High Court is a stark reminder that creative ownership alone is not always enough to win an infringement battle. For founders and IP professionals, the lesson is both simple and brutal: the law protects what you formally secure, not just what you create.

Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, claimed ownership over a distinctive tile drawing known as 'CATHERINE.' Believing this design was uniquely theirs, they took legal action against Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd., the defendant, alleging that the defendant's 'OPUS' tiles were an unauthorized copy of their original work. Indcon filed a civil suit seeking relief for both infringement and passing off, essentially arguing that Ultra Tiles had stolen their creative identity and was passing off a copied design in the marketplace. The dispute centered on a visual design used in the tile industry—a sector where aesthetics and originality often drive consumer choice.

Indcon argued that the 'CATHERINE' tile drawing was their original creative work and that Ultra Tiles had directly copied it in the form of the 'OPUS' tiles. They sought to protect their design under copyright law, claiming that the visual reproduction of their artistic work constituted infringement, and that the similarity between the products amounted to passing off. Ultra Tiles, on the other hand, challenged the very foundation of Indcon's claim. The core legal friction emerged around a critical question: could a design used industrially—applied to tiles—be protected under copyright law when it had not been registered under the Designs Act? This question pointed directly to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, a provision that creates a significant barrier for unregistered industrial designs seeking copyright protection.

The Madras High Court dismissed Indcon's suit, delivering a decisive win to Ultra Tiles. The court held that since the 'CATHERINE' design was not registered under the Designs Act, Indcon's claim for copyright infringement was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. This provision essentially states that once a design is applied industrially more than a certain number of times, copyright protection ceases to be available unless the design is registered under the Designs Act. Because Indcon had failed to take this step, their copyright claim collapsed. The court found that the legal pathway Indcon had chosen—copyright—was closed to them, and without a registered design, they had no enforceable right to prevent Ultra Tiles from producing similar tiles.

For founders and IP professionals in design-driven industries like tiles, textiles, or consumer goods, this case is a wake-up call. If your product's value lies in its visual design, you must understand the difference between copyright and design registration—and act accordingly. Copyright may protect artistic works in theory, but Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act can strip that protection away the moment a design is reproduced industrially without registration under the Designs Act. The practical lesson is clear: if you intend to protect a design as a visual form applied to a commercial product, register it under the Designs Act from the outset. Skipping this step doesn't just weaken your position—it can completely eliminate your ability to seek remedies like permanent injunctions against copycats, leaving you to watch a competitor profit from your creativity.