Indian Designers Would Know They Have Enforceable Legal Rights: Calcutta High Court Holds GUI Can Qualify As ‘Design’ Under Designs Act
Court holds that graphical user interfaces are capable of registration if they satisfy statutory requirements under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not per se excluded from design protection under the Designs Act, 2000.
The Court set aside multiple orders of the Controller of Patents and Designs that had rejected design registration applications on the ground that GUIs are not registrable designs. The Bench noted that recognising GUIs as products of industrial design activity would help Indian designers to know that they have enforceable legal rights.
The Court held that the Designs Act protects features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours, and GUIs inherently contain visual elements such as iconography, layouts, colour schemes, and graphical compositions that can be judged by the eye.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed, “…the definitions of design, article, industrial process require clarification and elaboration so that GUIs are recognized as products of industrial design activity. This would also ensure technological neutrality and lead to global integration which is necessary for conformity in terms of the Hague Agreement and The Riyadh Design Law Treaty both of which recognize virtual designs. This would also help Indian designers knowing that they have enforceable legal rights. The existing practice in the Manual published by the Controller contemplates the possibility of using dotted lines dashed lines to differentiate between protectable design elements from portions which are disclaimed. In this background, it is necessary for clarificatory guidance either by Legislature or by the Controller issuing appropriate directions expanding the scope of protectable designs. During the interregnum, there is nothing which prevents GUIs being registrable on a case to case basis after satisfying the requirements under sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act when properly identified with an article and keeping in mind that the design elements are not purely function driven”.
“The importance of registering GUIs is also significant from a business perspective. GUIs are a critical asset in modern day technology, commerce and digital services. There would also be legal certainty more explicit protection reduction in litigation and this approach would align India with international practice. A recent survey conducted by would Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has found that 92% of jurisdictions already protect GUIs under designs laws. A similar study conducted by the International Chamber of Commerce also reported that GUI protection is granted in most jurisdictions. This is also based on an expansive definition of ‘product’ and ‘designs’ in the European jurisdiction which covers animation, movement, transition and intangible products...”, the Bench further held.
The Bench was hearing a batch of statutory appeals filed by companies including NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Abiomed Inc., and TVS Motor Company Limited, which challenged orders refusing registration of designs relating to GUI display screens.
Senior Advocate Sayantan Basu appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sanjukta Gupta appeared for the respondent.
The Court rejecting the Controller’s reasoning, clarified that the Act does not require a design to be permanently visible or physically embodied, noting that many designs may only become visible when a product is used in its intended manner. It held that the fact that a GUI appears only when a device is switched on cannot be a ground to deny design protection.
The Court also rejected the argument that GUIs cannot be considered an “article”, explaining that a design only needs to be applied to an article, such as a display screen, smartphone, or vehicle dashboard. It emphasized that the expression “article of manufacture” must be interpreted broadly, especially in the context of modern technological developments.
Addressing concerns about dual protection under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act, the Court held that the statutory framework already prevents overlap. Once a visual feature derived from an artistic work is industrially applied to an article and becomes part of a product’s design, it may qualify for design protection subject to the conditions under the Act, it said.
Accordingly, the Court set aside multiple impugned orders rejecting the design applications and remanded the matters to the Controller of Patents and Designs for fresh consideration in accordance with the legal principles laid down in the judgment.
Cause Title: NEC Corporation v. The Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-08:69]
Appearances:
Appellant: Sayantan Basu, Senior Advocate, Tanmoy Roy, Aheriya Roy, Advocates.
Respondents: Sanjukta Gupta, Madhu Jana, Ujjal Rajak, Advocates.