For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
On 9 March 2026, the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court delivered a landmark judgment in a series of consolidated appeals under the Designs Act, 2000. The central issue before the Court was whether Graphic User Interfaces (GUIs)—the icons, layouts, and visual elements displayed on electronic screens—qualify as “designs” eligible for registration under the Act. This judgment is significant as it clarifies the scope of the term “design” and determines whether contemporary digital interfaces can receive statutory protection within the existing framework of Indian design law.
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose from several appeals filed by different companies whose applications for registering GUI designs had been rejected by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The first rejection occurred on 1 October 2019, when NEC Corporation’s application for a display screen with a GUI was refused. The Controller held that a GUI was not an “article” under Section 2(a) of the Designs Act and lacked permanence since it was visible only when a device was switched on. Shortly thereafter, on 20 September 2019, ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH faced a similar rejection for its application concerning a display screen for an electrosurgical generator. The Controller reasoned that GUIs were merely software applications and lacked consistent “eye appeal.”
In 2024, TVS Motor Company Limited’s application was rejected on 31 May, with the Controller ruling that GUIs were not “finished articles” and lacked a sense of touch. Then, in February 2025, Abiomed Inc’s applications for GUI designs used in vehicle dashboards were rejected on the ground that pictograms displayed on screens were incapable of registration. Each of these rejections was challenged before the Calcutta High Court, and the appeals were consolidated since they raised the same fundamental question: are GUIs registrable designs under the Designs Act, 2000?
Arguments in Favour
The appellants, supported by the Amicus Curiae, argued that the Controller had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the Act. They contended that GUIs consist of iconography, layouts, and colour schemes, all of which are visual features expressly protected under Section 2(d). This provision defines “design” as features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article. GUIs, they argued, clearly fall within this definition.
They further pointed to India’s adoption of the Locarno Classification, which includes Class 14-04 for screen displays and icons. This classification, they argued, demonstrates administrative intent to recognize GUIs as registrable designs. The appellants also urged the Court to adopt a broad interpretation of “article” under Section 2(a), which defines it as “any article of manufacture.” They argued that an article should not be limited to physical objects, and that GUIs applied to screens are part of the finished article sold to consumers. The rendering of GUIs through electronic signals and hardware, they submitted, constitutes a modern industrial process.
Another important contention was that permanence is not a statutory requirement. Section 2(d) does not require a design to be permanently visible; it only needs to be visible when the article is put to its intended or normal use. Finally, the appellants addressed concerns about dual protection. They pointed to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides that copyright ceases once a design is industrially applied more than fifty times. This ensures that there is no impermissible overlap between copyright and design protection.
Arguments Against
The Controller of Patents and Designs defended the rejections by arguing that GUIs do not meet the legal requirements for registration. The primary contention was that although the Design Rules were amended in 2021 to include GUIs, the Designs Act itself was not amended. Therefore, the statutory definitions of “article” and “design” remained unchanged, and GUIs did not fall within them. The Controller also argued that GUIs cannot be sold or manufactured separately and have no independent existence apart from the devices they reside in. Since GUIs are visible only when a device is switched on, they lack permanence and cannot be considered designs.
Another argument was that GUIs are already protected as “artistic works” under the Copyright Act, 1957. Granting design protection would amount to dual protection, which is impermissible. Finally, the Controller contended that “industrial process” under Section 2(d) refers only to manual, mechanical, or chemical processes, and does not include software-driven displays.
Court’s Decision
The High Court set aside the Controller’s orders and remanded the matters for fresh consideration. In doing so, it provided a detailed interpretation of the statutory provisions and relied on several important precedents.
The Court first addressed the definition of “article” under Section 2(a), which refers to “any article of manufacture.” It held that this is a broad term covering anything made by hand or machine. The Court emphasized that the design and the article are distinct and independent. A GUI applied to a screen satisfies the requirement of a design being applied to an article. In support of this reasoning, the Court cited Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016), where the term “article” was defined broadly as “a thing made by hand or machine.” It also referred to Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Corp., Case No. 5:15-CV-06836-EJD (2018), where even software was held to be an “article of manufacture.”
The Court then considered the meaning of “industrial process” under Section 2(d). It rejected the narrow view that industrial process is limited to manual, mechanical, or chemical means. The word “any” in the statute requires a broad interpretation, which includes electronic and software-driven processes. The Court relied on Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [2025] FCAFC 131, where the principle of “updating construction” was applied to interpret legislation in light of technological advances.
On the issue of permanence, the Court held that permanence is not a statutory requirement. A design is registrable if it is visible during the normal use of the article. It cited In Re: Hruby, 373 F.2d 997, which held that designs dependent on external conditions, such as a fountain or lamp, are still registrable. It also referred to K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application, [1982] RPC 166, where a watch display visible only when activated was held registrable.
The Court addressed concerns about dual protection by clarifying that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act prevents overlaps. Once a design is industrially applied more than fifty times, copyright ceases. It cited Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780, which analyzed the overlap between copyright and design law. Finally, the Court emphasized that GUIs are visual components distinct from underlying software codes. It referred to Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6591, which defined GUI as a visual component separate from software.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court concluded that GUIs are not excluded from registration under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. They are aesthetic features judged solely by the eye and applied to articles such as screens or devices. By recognizing GUIs as registrable designs, the Court aligned Indian law with international practices and provided legal certainty for the technology industry. This judgment ensures that innovation in digital interfaces receives the same protection as traditional industrial designs. It marks a turning point in Indian design law, demonstrating how courts can adapt statutory interpretation to technological progress. GUIs, once dismissed as intangible software, are now firmly recognized as visual designs deserving protection.
