INTRODUCTION
Architecture and architectural works have immense significance visually and culturally. They are created by a combination of creativity, technical skill and aesthetic qualities. Architectural designs came to be recognised as a form of intellectual property capable of protection after the 1908 Amendment to the Berne Convention, 1886. This inclusion was crucial in recognising and protecting the rights of architects over their architectural designs and works.
In India, the protection of architectural designs falls under three main categories of the Indian IP regime, namely copyrights, designs and trademarks. Each legal framework addresses a different facet of protection of the work, but their concurrent operation presents several legal complexities.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, architectural works are protected by Section 2(b) which defines a work of architecture to be any building or structure having an artistic character or design, or a model of such building or structure. Architectural works are also classified as artistic works, and hence, architects and designers are accorded the same rights provided for artistic works under Section 13 and 14 of the Act. Additionally, the architect is also granted moral rights over their work, enabling them to preserve the architectural integrity of the building.
However, the bar to secure copyright protection over an architectural design is very high. Public buildings which have no aesthetic recognitions, but are merely functional, may not qualify for copyright protection. On the other hand, buildings with distinct and unique architectural features may qualify.
In the modern day, technological advancements such as Virtual reality (VR) tours, drones and 3D printing, are able to reproduce models of buildings fairly easily. This raises questions of whether the current legal system of copyrights is sufficient to combat digital threats of infringement.
DESIGN LAW AND ITS APPLICATION TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS
The Designs Act, 2000 is another important legislation in the Indian IP regime which affords an additional layer of protection to architectural designs. However, unlike copyright which recognizes even building plans, layout drawings, etc., as copyrightable works, this Act focuses only on the distinct aesthetic aspects of the architectural work. Thus, this Act provides protection to features like the external façade, decorative elements/layouts and architectural features which contribute to the visual appeal of the building but do not serve any functional purpose.
Therefore, functional elements, such as modular designs are often excluded from the purview of the Designs Act. This poses a serious challenge for architects to secure IP protections for their designs. The growing demand for sustainability and green-innovation has encouraged progress towards more eco-friendly and innovative designs. The integration of IoT-enabled designs and smart technologies adds another layer of complexity as the same would fall in the domain of patent law.
TRADEMARKING OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS
When an architectural building or design is so unique that it becomes a distinct identifier of a brand or business, the silhouette of such buildings can be eligible for trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Iconic buildings such as the Sydney Opera House in Australia and the Empire State Building in New York have been registered as trademarks within their national IP jurisdictions. In India, the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai was the first building in India to be trademarked by its owners, setting a landmark precedent for architectural protection under the trademark law. The main objective of doing so was to preserve the hotel’s brand value and prevent the unauthorised usage of the building’s iconic design for commercial purposes.
Trademarking of a building’s design is a significant step in branding and marketing. It has immense commercial value when exploited in the right manner. However, it can be challenging to secure trademark registration over the design of a building. Unless the building is uniquely designed and is consistently associated with a particular brand to which it belongs, recognizable by the general public, the same cannot be registered under trademark. The advantage of this requirement is that generic structures which are only functional do not qualify as valid trademark.
OVERLAP OF IP PROTECTIONS IN THE INDIAN IP REGIME
The interplay between copyright, design, and trademark laws often leads to overlapping protections for architectural designs, which creates opportunities for protections and challenges for enforcement. Since each framework serves a distinct purpose, protecting a different feature of the architectural work, the practical application of the same can be complicated.
- Copyright and Design overlap – Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 ensures that mass-produced designs are covered by design law, not copyright law. It states that if a design can be registered under the Designs Act and is applied to over 50 articles through an industrial process, it loses copyright protection. Additionally, a registered design under the Designs Act cannot be protected by copyright simultaneously.
For instance, the original blueprint or model can be protected by copyright. But if the design is applied to create more than 50 structure through the industrial process, it would no longer be copyrightable, but fall under the purview of design law.
- Copyright and Trademark overlap – There are no practical problems in regards to concurrent enforcement of copyright and trademark protection over an architectural work. However, the dual protection can lead to disputes, specifically when determining the primary purpose of a design, as copyright protects artistic expression and trademark protects commercial branding.
- Design and Trademark overlap – These two legislations operate in a complimentary manner as the basic principles of the two IP legislations is similar, with one differentiating criterion for registration. Under the Design Act, the design to be registered is only required to be one of aesthetic value, and should not have any functionality. On the other hand, the main aspect looked into for trademark registration, is that of distinctiveness. In both cases, the evaluation is made on the design of the building, but with different purposes of registration. Although dual protection under both legislations is rare, it is not impossible as there is no express bar to the same.
This overlap in provisions does not provide more comprehensive protections, but rather gives rise to legal complexities. The three acts provide varying degrees and durations of protection, and this can lead to confusion for architects and designers who wish to protect their architectural creations.
EMERGING CHALLENGES IN THE MODERN SCENARIO
AI and technological advancements are all pervasive, and are gaining immense prominence even in the architecture industry. The push towards sustainability and integration of smart technologies in architecture designs is dynamically changing the landscape. The inclusion of generative AI in this sphere is leading to further complications of protection and enforcement. AI is increasingly being use to generate designs and create innovative building structures. However, as in the context of copyrightable works generated by artificial intelligence, ownership over the AI-generated architectural works is subject to controversy and debate.
Therefore, it can be observed that the Patent framework is fast gaining relevance in the architecture industry, alongside the other IP frameworks. Patents are crucial in protecting functional and technical innovations in building design, which are becoming a marked feature of the modern architecture ecosystem. As sustainability, green-technologies and smart-city initiatives gain momentum, architects and designers are turning to patents to safeguard their technical innovations. While design and copyright laws focus primarily on aesthetics, patents can play a critical role in protecting innovations.
CONCLUSION
The Copyright Act, Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act, are comprehensive to the extent of protecting traditional architectural features. However, with the growing integration of technology in the industry, it is clear that the Patents Act will have a key role to play in the future to secure the rights of architects over their designs.
Nevertheless, one of the most significant challenged in the near future for the legislature and the judiciary would be to harmonize the existing legislations to the extent of their overlap with one another. Clarification of legal ambiguities in regards to interpretation and application of the various protecting provisions will enable architects and designers to make informed decisions.
Additionally, it is also necessary to take into account the AI-factor. With the rapid development of sophisticated generative AI models, significant legislative reform is necessary to deal with upcoming challenges of IP registration and enforcement, specifically in regards to ownership rights. In order to ensure encouragement of creativity and innovation in the architecture industry, it is necessary to have a robust framework which is able to safeguard their creations. Thus, implementing a forward-looking intellectual property framework is essential.
Written by Varshika, Legal Intern at Intepat IP
