![Calcutta High Court Clears Way for Registration of GUI Designs in India The clouds of uncertainty relating to the registrability of Graphical User Interface (GUI) designs under the Designs Act, 2000, in India have been cleared by a landmark judgment of the Calcutta High Court on March 9, 2026, when Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that there is no per se exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d) of the Act. In the case of NEC Corporation vs The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., [IPDAID/22/2024], the Court pointed out the lack of clarity in the Design Office regarding the registrability of GUIs, which led to the rejection of a series of GUI applications followed by multiple appeals. The misconception of the respondent authorities, according to the Court, was anchored in their interpretation of the word “design” as a physical or tangible article. This has been premised on the notion that every article must have an element of physical embodiment. By following such a narrow approach, GUIs, icons, animations, and screen-based designs would never be covered because they exist in digital, virtual form. This, according to the Court, was a fallacy in all the impugned orders. This decision clarifies that a GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines, and ornamentation, and therefore falls within the kind of visual features the Act contemplates. The Court also observed that GUIs typically reflect creative choices in arrangement, proportion, spacing, colour palette, and icon design. These choices are aesthetic decisions that produce a visual impression that can be judged by the eye and therefore meet the qualitative requirements for design protection. Factual Matrix of the Four Appeals The four companies, viz NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH, Abiomed Inc and TVS Motor Company Limited, filed appeals against rejections of their design applications claiming novelty residing in the shape and pattern of the display screen with the GUI. The common ground taken by the respondent Controllers for rejecting these design applications was that GUIs do not constitute an article within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. Case of the Appellants The appellants argued that the GUI was a novel visual design applied to a touch screen device that qualified as a design under the Designs Act, 2000. Such screen displays and icons are recognised categories under the international Locarno Classification and therefore included in the Design Rules amendments. The appellant contended that GUI also have visual appeal and aesthetic value, and its creation is linked to an industrial process, which is the primary criterion for design protection. The common stand of all the appellants was that there is a misconceived notion in the Office of Designs that GUIs are not per se registrable under the Act. The Appellant argued that in construing the definitions of “article” under Section 2(a) and “design” under Section 2(d) of the Act, the respondent Controllers had adopted an unduly strict and narrow interpretation. The appellant contended that Design Office followed an erroneous approach that the Locarno classification, which had introduced GUI registration as a design, is only of administrative assistance and, in the absence of any amendment to the Act, does not aid in interpreting the definition of either “article” or “design”. The appellant contended that the impugned orders also erroneously interpreted that GUIs are not “applied by any industrial means or process” and hence do not fall within the definition of “design”. The appellants submitted that the impugned orders were flawed inasmuch as it has been held that since GUIs are neither sold nor manufactured separately, they cannot be treated as an “article”. The appellants argued that a GUI is visible only when the device is switched ON and remains ON (with no element of permanence in a GUI), which is another factor that the respondent erroneously considered in rejecting the registration of GUIs. Respondent Authority’s Reply The respondent agreed that the Design (Amendment) Rules, 2021, had introduced GUI as a category of industrial design eligible for registration, but maintained that there has been no corresponding amendment to the Designs Act, 2000, which permits such registration. The respondent also argued that there is no amendment to the definition of "article" or "design" under the Act and contended that a design is an integral part of an article. The respondent submitted that GUI design cannot be separated from, nor does it have any independent existence from, the article to which it has been applied. The respondent further argued that a GUI cannot be made or sold separately, and that it is visible only when the electronic device in the finished article is switched ON; hence, it has no element of permanence. In any event, such a display becomes non-existent as soon as the device is switched OFF. GUI is also not applied to an article manually, chemically or in any combination by way of an industrial process. Submissions of the Amicus Curiae The Court appointed Mr Adarsh Ramanujan as amicus curiae to assist in this matter. He agreed that the Locarno Classification provided guidance to assist with the filing and search for a design application, and that it cannot, per se, be interpreted to create a grant or exclusion of GUI design protection. According to him, a GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, the composition of lines, and ornamentation, which fall within the kinds of visual features that the Act regards as registrable. He submitted that there is nothing in Section 2(d) which expressly refers to a design being permanently visible. According to him, the criterion of permanence has been erroneously read into the definition of design in the impugned orders. He submitted that there is no statutory basis that the design element must be intrinsic or integral to the article to any particular degree. Section 2(d) contemplates features to be applied to an article. According to him, the requirement that the GUI in the finished article be judged solely by eye is also complied with, since the finished article encompasses the final product received by a consumer, which can be analysed to assess the complete computer device integrity of the display unit. Court’s Analysis and Findings On Construing “article” and “design” Navigating through the plain reading of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, the Court noted that it is clear that a design can be applied to an article by any industrial process. “Article” as defined under Section 2(a), according to the Court, means any article of manufacture or any substance artificial or partly artificial and partly natural and (c) includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately. Section 2(d) of the Act requires that a design be applied to an article. This means that the design itself need not be the article. Thus, the design and the article are distinct, independent and separate. According to the Court, the expression “article” is a broad term that covers “a thing made by hand or machine”. Cting ruling of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs Apple Inc. 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016)], wherein it was held that the process of applying the GUI to the finished article is a mechanical and manual process that falls within the definition of an industrial process, the Court observed that there is no policy reason why registration of such designs should be refused. The Court ruled that the term ‘article’ requires a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation. According to the Court, the contention of the respondents that there is no explicit provision under the Act entailing protection of GUI within the scope of Sections 2(a) (article) and 2(d) (design) of the Act was incorrect and legally untenable. The Court found that there was a pre-conceived bias in the mindset of the respondent Controllers for tying it down to a physical embodiment of sorts, which is a fallacy in all the impugned orders. The Court noted that a GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines, and ornamentation, and therefore falls within the kind of visual features the Act contemplates. The Court also observed that GUIs typically reflect creative choices in arrangement, proportion, spacing, colour palette, and icon design. These choices, according to the Court, are aesthetic decisions that produce a visual impression capable of being judged by the eye and therefore meet the qualitative requirements for design protection. The Court ruled that there is no per se exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d) of the Act. On updating Construction The Court pointed out that, in interpreting the Act, one should apply the principles of updating construction, which suggest a construction that takes into account relevant changes that have occurred since the enactment. According to the Court, this would require analysing the nature of the particular Act and considering the relevant changes in modern-day technology. The Court observed that to match such developments legislature intended that the Court’s interpretation should take into account advancements which have occurred since the enactment of the legislation. The Court ruled that, in the present dispute, the term "industrial process" must be interpreted to consider technical and scientific advancements. The Court noted that it is relevant to updating the interpretation of Design legislation, as it is fundamentally linked to such developments. On “Applied to an Article by any Industrial Process” The Court noted that the interplay of digital and physical processes, displaying or applying a GUI to a display surface, undeniably fits within the evolving concept of an industrial process. According to the Court, the display process involves systematically manipulating electronic signals and precisely rendering them by advanced hardware. Such activities exemplify the modern industrial enterprise inherent in technology-driven industries. According to the Court, the application of the GUI to the finished article is a mechanical and manual process that falls within the definition of an industrial process. Thus, there are strong reasons to contend that the process of displaying a GUI fulfils the definition of an industrial process. In view of the above, the contention of the Controller that the expression ‘industrial process’ is limited and restricted is also rejected. On Permanence Commenting on taking permanency of design as one of the grounds for rejection of GUI applications, the Court held that Section 2(d) nowhere refers to a design being permanently visible. According to the Court, there is no statutory basis for the standard that the design element must be intrinsic or integral to an article to any particular degree. The law requires that the features be applied to an article. The term applied is generic and broad. The legislative intent does not require that the design features be “permanently applied” or “permanently affixed”. The concept of permanence of the design is not to be found in Section 2(d) of the Act, and this facet has been wrongly included in all the impugned orders. Further, the Court pointed out that there is no requirement of touch under Section 2(d) of the Act. All that the statute requires and contemplates is an association between the design and the article. The statutory intent, according to the Court, is to prevent a design from being registered in the abstract without association to the article. On the Test of Noticeability The Court further highlighted that many designs rely on external conditions to manifest their full appearance, and that this does not undermine their eligibility for protection. According to the Court, there are many designs that depend on an external factor to produce the appearance. Citing the example of a lampshade, the Court stated that it may not be apparent unless the lamp is lighted. The Court ruled that dependence of the existence of a design on something outside itself is not a reason for holding it is not a design or an article of manufacture. Citing K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application (1982) RPC 166, a ruling wherein a watch display (which became visible only when activated) was held to be registrable, the Court noted that even though the features of the design may not be necessarily visible at the time of purchase, it becomes visible only when the article is used. The Court found that the impugned orders also ignore this test of noticeability, which expressly recognises that internal features visible only during use may be registered as designs. The Court noted that the Patent Office Manual covers this aspect for guidance by citing the decision in Ferrero Cs.P.As application (1978) RPC 473, for providing guidance on Section 2(d) in construing the expression ‘judged solely by the eye’ to explain design features which are visible only during use, may be the subject matter of registration. According to the Court, all of these guidelines and decisions have been disregarded in the impugned orders. The Court ruled that : “the correct legal test is whether the design is visible when the article is put to its intended or normal use. Dependency does not preclude a design from being considered an article of manufacture. A design which appears during normal operation of the article is nonetheless applied to that article if it is reproducible and manmade. To this extent, the objection of the Controller that GUI is only visible when the device is turned ‘ON’ is inherently flawed, hyper-technical and incorrect.” On Eye Appeal and Functional Elements of GUI Designs According to the Court, an additional test to fulfil the criteria of being considered a design is whether the GUI, as a finished article, appeals to or can be judged solely by the eye. For this purpose, two points must be considered. The first point that needs to be examined is what the finished article claims. The second point is whether GUIs that are functional are excluded from protection. When the Court looked into this aspect, it was found that all the impugned orders proceeded on a misconception of what constitutes a finished article. The Court pointed out that the term “finished article” is not expressly defined in the Act. According to the Court, the legislature has deliberately distinguished “finished article” from “any article”, which is evident from the criteria in Section 2(d) of the Act. The Court found that the rationale behind employing these different terms is evident from the contextual analysis of the definition. The Court pointed out that a specific shape, pattern, or ornamentation can be applied to an article which also serves as a component to an end product sold to consumers. Citing examples of a car's grill (with patterns) and a smartphone's design (styling), the Court asserted that they could vary from case to case and are protectable based on eye appeal. The Court added that a GUI may have functional elements, and there may also be design features that involve aesthetic considerations and are not solely dictated by function. According to the Court, the respondent authorities have, in the impugned orders, confused the functional aspect of the GUI, i.e., how it operates, with its ornamental aspect, i.e., how it looks. According to the Court, a design is unregistrable only if its appearance is dictated solely by function, leaving no room for eye appeal. On Legislative Intent for Adopting Locarno Classification While agreeing with the contention of the respondent controller that the adoption of the Locarno classification in the rules may be for administrative guidance and may assist in filing and search, the Court opined that it cannot be used to create, grant, or exclude GUIs from design protection. The Court observed that the legislative intent in adopting the Locarno classification and being bound by it evidences a clear legislative and administrative intent to recognise and protect digital designs and GUIs, provided they meet the requirements of Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act. Court’s Decision The Court set aside all the impugned orders and remanded all the cases to the Controller for hearing afresh, after giving each of the appellants an opportunity of being heard. This ruling is a significant milestone in clearing the way for digital design protection in India as well. Conclusion In this path-breaking decision, the Calcutta High Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of four GUI Design applications. While passing this judgment, the Court not only shattered the misconception of the respondent authorities, which is fallaciously articulated by interpreting the word 'design' as anchored to a physical or tangible article. According to the Court, this is premised on the pre-conceived notion that every article must have an element of physical embodiment. In following such a narrow approach, GUIs, icons, animations, and screen-based designs would never be covered by the respondent Controller, as they exist in digital and virtual form. The Court categorically stated that such an approach is fallacious as linking design to any physical or tangible article is not mandated under Section 2(d). According to the Court, it is also clear from the plain language of Section 2(d) that a design be applied to an article by any industrial process, including the use of digital platforms by developers to give an aesthetic and distinct look to the user interface. This ruling would pave the way for the protection of Graphical User Interface (GUI) designs under the Designs Act 2000. This shift would provide significant encouragement for digital platform developers, where user interface aesthetics and a distinct look play a crucial role in the product differentiation matrix. Seen as a small step to align global practise to include innovative screen displays, novel icons, and new GUI layouts under the umbrella of registrable designs in India, digital design developers would feel encouraged to seek protection for their GUI designs as protectable IP assets in India.](https://www.lexorbis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Calcutta-High-Court-Clears-Way-for-Registration-of-GUI-Designs-in-India-300x169.jpg)
The clouds of uncertainty relating to the registrability of Graphical User Interface (GUI) designs under the Designs Act, 2000, in India have been cleared by a landmark judgment of the Calcutta High Court on March 9, 2026, when Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that there is no per se exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d) of the Act. In the case of NEC Corporation vs The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., [IPDAID/22/2024], the Court pointed out the lack of clarity in the Design Office regarding the registrability of GUIs, which led to the rejection of a series of GUI applications followed by multiple appeals.
The misconception of the respondent authorities, according to the Court, was anchored in their interpretation of the word “design” as a physical or tangible article. This has been premised on the notion that every article must have an element of physical embodiment. By following such a narrow approach, GUIs, icons, animations, and screen-based designs would never be covered because they exist in digital, virtual form. This, according to the Court, was a fallacy in all the impugned orders.
This decision clarifies that a GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines, and ornamentation, and therefore falls within the kind of visual features the Act contemplates. The Court also observed that GUIs typically reflect creative choices in arrangement, proportion, spacing, colour palette, and icon design. These choices are aesthetic decisions that produce a visual impression that can be judged by the eye and therefore meet the qualitative requirements for design protection.
Factual Matrix of the Four Appeals
The four companies, viz NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH, Abiomed Inc and TVS Motor Company Limited, filed appeals against rejections of their design applications claiming novelty residing in the shape and pattern of the display screen with the GUI. The common ground taken by the respondent Controllers for rejecting these design applications was that GUIs do not constitute an article within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act.
Case of the Appellants
The appellants argued that the GUI was a novel visual design applied to a touch screen device that qualified as a design under the Designs Act, 2000. Such screen displays and icons are recognised categories under the international Locarno Classification and therefore included in the Design Rules amendments. The appellant contended that GUI also have visual appeal and aesthetic value, and its creation is linked to an industrial process, which is the primary criterion for design protection.
The common stand of all the appellants was that there is a misconceived notion in the Office of Designs that GUIs are not per se registrable under the Act. The Appellant argued that in construing the definitions of “article” under Section 2(a) and “design” under Section 2(d) of the Act, the respondent Controllers had adopted an unduly strict and narrow interpretation. The appellant contended that Design Office followed an erroneous approach that the Locarno classification, which had introduced GUI registration as a design, is only of administrative assistance and, in the absence of any amendment to the Act, does not aid in interpreting the definition of either “article” or “design”.
The appellant contended that the impugned orders also erroneously interpreted that GUIs are not “applied by any industrial means or process” and hence do not fall within the definition of “design”. The appellants submitted that the impugned orders were flawed inasmuch as it has been held that since GUIs are neither sold nor manufactured separately, they cannot be treated as an “article”. The appellants argued that a GUI is visible only when the device is switched ON and remains ON (with no element of permanence in a GUI), which is another factor that the respondent erroneously considered in rejecting the registration of GUIs.
Respondent Authority’s Reply
The respondent agreed that the Design (Amendment) Rules, 2021, had introduced GUI as a category of industrial design eligible for registration, but maintained that there has been no corresponding amendment to the Designs Act, 2000, which permits such registration. The respondent also argued that there is no amendment to the definition of “article” or “design” under the Act and contended that a design is an integral part of an article. The respondent submitted that GUI design cannot be separated from, nor does it have any independent existence from, the article to which it has been applied.
The respondent further argued that a GUI cannot be made or sold separately and is visible only when the electronic device in the finished article is switched ON; hence, it lacks any element of permanence. In any event, such a display becomes non-existent as soon as the device is switched OFF. GUI is also not applied to an article manually, chemically or in any combination by way of an industrial process.
Submissions of the Amicus Curiae
The Court appointed Mr Adarsh Ramanujan as amicus curiae to assist in this matter. He agreed that the Locarno Classification provided guidance to assist with the filing and search for a design application, and that it cannot, per se, be interpreted to create a grant or exclusion of GUI design protection. According to him, a GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, the composition of lines, and ornamentation, which fall within the kinds of visual features that the Act regards as registrable.
He submitted that there is nothing in Section 2(d) which expressly refers to a design being permanently visible. According to him, the criterion of permanence has been erroneously read into the definition of design in the impugned orders. He submitted that there is no statutory basis that the design element must be intrinsic or integral to the article to any particular degree. Section 2(d) contemplates features to be applied to an article. According to him, the requirement that the GUI in the finished article be judged solely by eye is also complied with, since the finished article encompasses the final product received by a consumer, which can be analysed to assess the complete computer device integrity of the display unit.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
On Construing “article” and “design”
Navigating through the plain reading of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, the Court noted that it is clear that a design can be applied to an article by any industrial process. “Article” as defined under Section 2(a), according to the Court, means any article of manufacture or any substance artificial or partly artificial and partly natural and (c) includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately. Section 2(d) of the Act requires that a design be applied to an article. This means that the design itself need not be the article. Thus, the design and the article are distinct, independent and separate. According to the Court, the expression “article” is a broad term that covers “a thing made by hand or machine”. Cting ruling of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs Apple Inc. 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016)], wherein it was held that the process of applying the GUI to the finished article is a mechanical and manual process that falls within the definition of an industrial process, the Court observed that there is no policy reason why registration of such designs should be refused.
The Court ruled that the term ‘article’ requires a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation. According to the Court, the contention of the respondents that there is no explicit provision under the Act entailing protection of GUI within the scope of Sections 2(a) (article) and 2(d) (design) of the Act was incorrect and legally untenable. The Court found that there was a pre-conceived bias in the mindset of the respondent Controllers for tying it down to a physical embodiment of sorts, which is a fallacy in all the impugned orders.
The Court noted that a GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines, and ornamentation, and therefore falls within the kind of visual features the Act contemplates. The Court also observed that GUIs typically reflect creative choices in arrangement, proportion, spacing, colour palette, and icon design. These choices, according to the Court, are aesthetic decisions that produce a visual impression capable of being judged by the eye and therefore meet the qualitative requirements for design protection. The Court ruled that there is no per se exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d) of the Act.
On updating Construction
The Court pointed out that, in interpreting the Act, one should apply the principles of updating construction, which call for a construction that takes into account relevant changes that have occurred since enactment. According to the Court, this would require analysing the nature of the particular Act and considering the relevant changes in modern-day technology. The Court observed that to match such developments legislature intended that the Court’s interpretation should take into account advancements which have occurred since the enactment of the legislation. The Court ruled that, in the present dispute, the term “industrial process” must be interpreted to consider technical and scientific advancements. The Court noted that it is relevant to updating the interpretation of Design legislation, as it is fundamentally linked to such developments.
On “Applied to an Article by any Industrial Process”
The Court noted that the interplay of digital and physical processes, displaying or applying a GUI to a display surface, undeniably fits within the evolving concept of an industrial process. According to the Court, the display process involves systematically manipulating electronic signals and precisely rendering them by advanced hardware. Such activities exemplify the modern industrial enterprise inherent in technology-driven industries. According to the Court, the application of the GUI to the finished article is a mechanical and manual process that falls within the definition of an industrial process. Thus, there are strong reasons to contend that the process of displaying a GUI fulfils the definition of an industrial process. In view of the above, the contention of the Controller that the expression ‘industrial process’ is limited and restricted is also rejected.
On Permanence
Commenting on taking permanency of design as one of the grounds for rejection of GUI applications, the Court held that Section 2(d) nowhere refers to a design being permanently visible. According to the Court, there is no statutory basis for the standard that the design element must be intrinsic or integral to an article to any particular degree. The law requires that the features be applied to an article. The term applied is generic and broad. The legislative intent does not require that the design features be “permanently applied” or “permanently affixed”.
The concept of permanence of the design is not to be found in Section 2(d) of the Act, and this facet has been wrongly included in all the impugned orders. Further, the Court pointed out that there is no requirement of touch under Section 2(d) of the Act. All that the statute requires and contemplates is an association between the design and the article. The statutory intent, according to the Court, is to prevent a design from being registered in the abstract without association to the article.
On the Test of Noticeability
The Court further highlighted that many designs rely on external conditions to manifest their full appearance, and that this does not undermine their eligibility for protection. According to the Court, there are many designs that depend on an external factor to produce the appearance. Citing the example of a lampshade, the Court stated that it may not be apparent unless the lamp is lighted. The Court ruled that dependence of the existence of a design on something outside itself is not a reason for holding it is not a design or an article of manufacture.
Citing K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application (1982) RPC 166, a ruling wherein a watch display (which became visible only when activated) was held to be registrable, the Court noted that even though the features of the design may not be necessarily visible at the time of purchase, it becomes visible only when the article is used. The Court found that the impugned orders also ignore this test of noticeability, which expressly recognises that internal features visible only during use may be registered as designs.
The Court noted that the Patent Office Manual covers this aspect for guidance by citing the decision in Ferrero Cs.P.As application (1978) RPC 473, for providing guidance on Section 2(d) in construing the expression ‘judged solely by the eye’ to explain design features which are visible only during use, may be the subject matter of registration. According to the Court, all of these guidelines and decisions have been disregarded in the impugned orders. The Court ruled that :
“the correct legal test is whether the design is visible when the article is put to its intended or normal use. Dependency does not preclude a design from being considered an article of manufacture. A design which appears during normal operation of the article is nonetheless applied to that article if it is reproducible and manmade. To this extent, the objection of the Controller that GUI is only visible when the device is turned ‘ON’ is inherently flawed, hyper-technical and incorrect.”
On Eye Appeal and Functional Elements of GUI Designs
According to the Court, an additional test to fulfil the criteria of being considered a design is whether the GUI, as a finished article, appeals to or can be judged solely by the eye. For this purpose, two points must be considered. The first point that needs to be examined is what the finished article claims. The second point is whether GUIs that are functional are excluded from protection. When the Court looked into this aspect, it was found that all the impugned orders proceeded on a misconception of what constitutes a finished article. The Court pointed out that the term “finished article” is not expressly defined in the Act.
According to the Court, the legislature has deliberately distinguished “finished article” from “any article”, which is evident from the criteria in Section 2(d) of the Act. The Court found that the rationale behind employing these different terms is evident from the contextual analysis of the definition. The Court pointed out that a specific shape, pattern, or ornamentation can be applied to an article which also serves as a component to an end product sold to consumers.
Citing examples of a car’s grill (with patterns) and a smartphone’s design (styling), the Court asserted that they could vary from case to case and are protectable based on eye appeal. The Court added that a GUI may have functional elements, and there may also be design features that involve aesthetic considerations and are not solely dictated by function. According to the Court, the respondent authorities have, in the impugned orders, confused the functional aspect of the GUI, i.e., how it operates, with its ornamental aspect, i.e., how it looks. According to the Court, a design is unregistrable only if its appearance is dictated solely by function, leaving no room for eye appeal.
On Legislative Intent for Adopting Locarno Classification
While agreeing with the contention of the respondent controller that the adoption of the Locarno classification in the rules may be for administrative guidance and may assist in filing and search, the Court opined that it cannot be used to create, grant, or exclude GUIs from design protection. The Court observed that the legislative intent in adopting the Locarno classification and being bound by it evidences a clear legislative and administrative intent to recognise and protect digital designs and GUIs, provided they meet the requirements of Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act.
Court’s Decision
The Court set aside all the impugned orders and remanded all the cases to the Controller for hearing afresh, after giving each of the appellants an opportunity of being heard. This ruling is a significant milestone in clearing the way for digital design protection in India as well.
Conclusion
In this path-breaking decision, the Calcutta High Court set aside the Controller’s refusal of four GUI Design applications. While passing this judgment, the Court not only shattered the misconception of the respondent authorities, which is fallaciously articulated by interpreting the word ‘design’ as anchored to a physical or tangible article. According to the Court, this is premised on the pre-conceived notion that every article must have an element of physical embodiment.
In following such a narrow approach, GUIs, icons, animations, and screen-based designs would never be covered by the respondent Controller, as they exist in digital and virtual form. The Court categorically stated that such an approach is fallacious as linking design to any physical or tangible article is not mandated under Section 2(d). According to the Court, it is also clear from the plain language of Section 2(d) that a design be applied to an article by any industrial process, including the use of digital platforms by developers to give an aesthetic and distinct look to the user interface.
This ruling would pave the way for the protection of Graphical User Interface (GUI) designs under the Designs Act 2000. This shift would provide significant encouragement for digital platform developers, where user interface aesthetics and a distinct look play a crucial role in the product differentiation matrix. Seen as a small step to align global practise to include innovative screen displays, novel icons, and new GUI layouts under the umbrella of registrable designs in India, digital design developers would feel encouraged to seek protection for their GUI designs as protectable IP assets in India.
Author: DPS Parmar (Special Counsel)