By Jigyasa Pareek

The protection of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) under design law has, globally, moved towards broad recognition, with a majority of jurisdictions acknowledging GUIs as registrable subject matter. Studies by WIPO and the International Chamber of Commerce indicate that over 90% of jurisdictions extend design protection to GUIs, supported by expansive interpretations of “design” and “product” that accommodate digital, animated, and screen-based interfaces. Jurisdictions such as the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia have expressly evolved their frameworks to recognise GUIs, reflecting a shift towards technological neutrality and alignment with international instruments such as the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.

The Indian position, however, has remained uncertain, largely stemming from the perceived incompatibility between the statutory requirement of a “design” being applied to an “article” and the inherently digital nature of GUIs. Section 2(d) defines a “design” in terms of visual features applied to an article, wherein Section 2(a) defines “article” to include any article of manufacture or substance. Despite the apparent width of these definitions, the absence of an explicit reference to screen-based or digital subject matter led to a restrictive administrative approach, with GUIs often being treated as falling outside the scope of the Act.

Although the Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 introduced Class 14-04 under the Locarno Classification covering “screen displays and icons”, the Designs Office has, in several instances, taken the view that such classification is merely administrative and cannot aid in the interpretation of “article” or “design” in the absence of a corresponding amendments to the Designs Act. Proceeding on this basis, several applications disclosing novel GUIs have been rejected on multiple grounds:

• GUIs are not applied to an article manually, mechanically, chemically or in any combination by way of an industrial process, as contemplated under Section 2(d);
• A GUI, being neither manufactured nor sold independently, does not qualify as an “article”;
• The display screen constitutes the article, rendering the GUI itself incapable of independent registration;
• GUIs lack permanence, being visible only when the device is switched on; and
• GUIs are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, as an ‘artistic work’, thereby precluding design protection as dual protection cannot be granted.

At the same time, certain GUI applications have been granted by the Designs Office.

This impasse has now been addressed by the Calcutta High Court in a common judgement in NEC Corporation vs The Controller & Anr. [IPDAID/21/2024], Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH vs The Controller [IPDAID/22/2024], Abiomed Inc. vs The Assistant Controller & Anr. [IPDAID/1/2025], Abiomed Inc. vs The Assistant Controller & Anr. [IPDAID/2/2025], TVS Motor Company Ltd. vs The Assistant Controller [IPDAID/3/2025]. The Court has held that GUIs are capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000, and remarked that this approach would align India with international practice. The Court made the following observations:

1. Scope of “Design” and “Article”

• The definition of “design” under Section 2(d) contains both positive and negative elements.
  • Positive, it covers visual features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article, in two-dimensional or three-dimensional forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, and that is further applied in the finished article that is judged solely by the eye.
  • Negative, it excludes modes of construction, mechanical devices, trademarks, property marks, and artistic works under the Copyright Act.
• There is no requirement of touch under section 2(d) of the Act.
• An “article” under Section 2(a) means any (i) article of manufacture, (ii) any substance artificial or partly artificial and partly natural and (ii) includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately.
• A design needs only be “applied to” an article, therefore the design itself need not be the article, they are distinct, independent and separate.
• The statutory intent is to prevent a design being registered in the abstract without association to the article.
• The expression “article of manufacture” in Section 2(a) is broad and generic. It is a misconception to interpret the word design to a physical or tangible article. Even software has been recognised in comparative jurisprudence as an “article of manufacture”.
• An article may include any substance (artificial or partly natural) and ought not to be narrowed to a physical embodiment.
• The relevant “article” for a GUI may vary and could include the display screen or the final consumer product (e.g., phone, tablet, dashboard).

2. Meaning of “Industrial Process”

• The use of the word “any” in Section 2(d) renders the expression “industrial process” non-exhaustive, thereby extending beyond merely manual, mechanical, or chemical processes.
• The process of displaying a GUI, through the interplay of digital and physical processes, involving electronic signal manipulation and hardware rendering, squarely falls within the scope of an “industrial process”.
• The Court expressly disapproved the restrictive interpretation adopted by the Controller in UST Global (Singapore) vs Controller of Patents and Designs where the Controller held that: (i) a design must be integral with the article itself and since GUI is not visible with the touchscreen per se, this criteria is not fulfilled; (ii) a GUI is not part of the “finished article” as it is not inherently present without activation; and (iii) “industrial process” is confined to manual, mechanical, or chemical processes, thereby excluding digital processes.

3. Updating Construction and Technological Context

• The principles of updating construction should be adopted to interpret the Act i.e., relevant changes which have occurred since the enactment of the Act should be taken into account. Accordingly, the expression “industrial process” ought to be understood in a manner that accommodates modern scientific and technical advancements.
• Reliance was placed on Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd vs Commissioner of Patents [2025 FCAFC 131], where the Federal Court of Australia applied the principle of updating construction to hold that statutory interpretation must keep pace with technological advancements. While rendered in the context of patent law, the Calcutta High Court found this reasoning equally applicable, observing that a contrary approach would ignore the shift from physical mechanisms to software-driven digital interfaces and undermine the very intent behind recognising GUIs under the amended Design Rules.

4. Role of Locarno Classification

• Inclusion of GUIs under Class 14-04 of the Locarno Classification does not, by itself, guarantee registration under the Act. The classification remains administrative in nature, as reflected in Article 2(1) of the Locarno Agreement and the proviso to Rule 10(1) of the Design Rules, which makes registration subject to Sections 2(a) and 2(d).
• The Locarno framework may guide classification, filing, and search, but cannot be relied upon to create, confer, or exclude substantive rights.
• At the same time, India’s adoption of the Locarno Classification is indicative of a broader legislative and administrative intent to accommodate and protect digital designs, including GUIs, subject to statutory requirements. This approach also aligns with India’s obligations under Article 25 of the TRIPS Agreement, which emphasises protection of new and original industrial designs.

5. Permanent Visibility

• There is no statutory requirement that a design must be permanently visible. The Act does not mandate that the design be intrinsic or inseparable from the article; it is sufficient if such features are “applied to” an article, a phrase that is to be construed broadly.
• Visibility during intended use is sufficient. Designs that rely on external conditions to manifest their full appearance (e.g., a lampshade, display panel of an electronic watch, GUIs) are not excluded.
• A design which appears during normal operation of the article can be said to be applied to that article if it is reproducible and manmade.

6. “Judged Solely by the Eye” and Functionality

• The term “finished article” in Section 2(d) must be understood contextually and may include the end product as perceived by the consumer.
• While GUIs may perform functions, their visual elements, such as layout, icons, and colour schemes, may still possess independent aesthetic value.
• A design is excluded only where its appearance is solely dictated by function with no room for eye appeal; the Controller ought not to conflate functionality with visual appeal.

7. Dual Protection

• The registration of GUIs as designs does not result in impermissible dual protection, as their legal character changes when industrially applied to an article. The issue must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• The statutory framework itself addresses concerns of dual protection; Section 2(d) excludes “artistic works”, while Section 15 of the Copyright Act limits the subsistence of copyright protection once a design is industrially applied.
• A GUI, though generated by a computer program, is not itself a computer program in the sense of a literary work under the Copyright Act; it is a visual interface comprising graphical elements such as layouts, icons, and colour schemes. The visual output is distinct from the underlying code.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd [2025 SCC Online SC 780], the Court emphasised that once visual features are applied to an article and meant for industrial purposes, they fall within the domain of “design”. The law harmonises both regimes: while an original artistic work may enjoy copyright, its industrial application derived from the original work for industrial production is governed by design law.