Introduction
High Court at Calcutta delivered a comprehensive judgment on 9 March 2026 that decisively settles the question of whether Graphic User Interfaces can be registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000. The Court examined the statutory definitions of “article” and “design”, rejected the Controller’s unduly restrictive interpretation, and held that GUIs are not per se ineligible for protection. The ruling underscores that a GUI, comprising iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, inherently satisfies the visual features contemplated by Section 2(d) when applied to an article such as a display screen or finished electronic device through an industrial process broadly understood to include digital rendering.
By invoking principles of updating construction to accommodate technological evolution and drawing persuasive value from both Indian and foreign precedents, the court has not only set aside multiple rejection orders but has also aligned Indian design law with international practices prevalent in 92 per cent of jurisdictions as per WIPO surveys. This decision heralds greater legal certainty for technology companies, reduces potential litigation, and ensures that India remains competitive in protecting digital assets under the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.
Factual Background
The appeals stemmed from a series of design applications filed by leading global and Indian entities seeking protection for innovative GUIs displayed on electronic screens.
- NEC Corporation: Application No. 285453 claimed novelty residing in the shape and pattern of a display screen hosting a GUI, which the Controller rejected on the ground that the GUI itself does not constitute an article under Section 2(a) and is merely software codes lacking permanence.
- ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH: Application No. 277243, initially titled “A Display Unit for a High Frequency Generator” and later amended to “Display Screen for an Electrosurgical High Frequency Generator”, was turned down because the GUI was visible only when the device was switched on and connected to a computing system, rendering it purely functional without consistent eye appeal.
- Abiomed Inc.: Faced rejection of applications Nos. 397600-001 and 397600-002 for “Display Panel or Portion thereof with Graphical User Interface” intended for vehicle dashboards, the Controller holding that the pictogram displayed on the screen could not be registered.
- TVS Motor Company Limited: Application No. 393339-001 for a GUI design was refused on the additional ground that it lacked reasons in the order, amounting to violation of natural justice, and that a GUI cannot be judged solely by the eye or possess a sense of touch.
In each instance the Controller proceeded on the premise that the 2021 amendment to the Design Rules incorporating GUI under Locarno Class 14-04 was merely administrative and could not override the unamended definitions in the parent Act, that GUIs are not applied by industrial means, cannot be sold or manufactured separately, and are already protected under copyright as artistic works, precluding dual protection.
Reasoning
Statutory Interpretation of Section 2(d)
The court commenced its analysis by setting out the positive and negative limbs of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, emphasizing that the definition is not confined to physical tangibility but extends to any features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article by any industrial process, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, and judged solely by the eye.
Distinction Between Design and Article
It clarified that the design and the article are distinct; the relevant article for a GUI may be the display unit itself or the finished consumer product such as a smartphone, tablet or automobile dashboard. The expression “article of manufacture” received a liberal interpretation, drawing upon the United States Supreme Court’s observation in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc. that it covers “a thing made by hand or machine”, and the subsequent recognition in Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Corp. that even software qualifies. The court rejected the fallacy that every article must possess physical embodiment, noting that such a narrow approach would permanently exclude digital and virtual designs.
Meaning of Industrial Process
Turning to the phrase “applied to an article by any industrial process”, the judgment highlighted that the word “any” preceding “industrial process” is deliberately expansive and not limited to the illustrative manual, mechanical or chemical methods.
The process of displaying a GUI involves systematic manipulation of electronic signals and precise rendering by advanced hardware, fitting squarely within modern industrial enterprise. The court applied the doctrine of updating construction, citing Bennion on Statutory Interpretation and State of Punjab vs. Amritsar Beverages Ltd., to interpret the Act in light of technological advancements, and found persuasive analogy in the Federal Court of Australia’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Patents.
Rejection of Permanence Requirement
The impugned orders’ insistence on permanence was found to have no statutory foundation; Section 2(d) nowhere requires the design to be permanently visible or affixed.
- Relied on In re: Hruby – ornamental display of a fountain protected despite dependence on external factors.
- Relied on K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application – display visible only when activated still registrable.
- Manual of Designs Practice – test of noticeability satisfied during normal use.
The finished-article requirement was satisfied because the GUI forms part of the complete product received by the consumer.
Locarno Classification and Legislative Intent
Locarno Class 14-04 explicitly listing Screen Displays and Icons, including Graphical User Interfaces, was acknowledged as indicative of legislative intent following India’s accession to the Locarno Agreement and the 2021 Rules amendment, though classification remains administrative and registration is ultimately subject to Sections 2(a) and 2(d).
Dual Protection and Copyright
Dual protection concerns were dispelled through a harmonious reading with the Copyright Act, 1957; a GUI is a visual configuration distinct from both computer programmes (literary works) and pure artistic works.
The Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd. provided the definitive two-pronged test:
- Ascertain whether the work is purely artistic or a design derived from it through industrial application.
- Apply functional utility where copyright does not apply.
Reliance on Foreign and Indian Precedents
The UST Global (Singapore) order was held to be based on a misconstruction of the Act and was accordingly distinguished. Foreign decisions were accorded persuasive value, consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence in Forasol v. ONGC and the Cryogas case itself.
Inconsistent Administrative Practice
The court further noted the inconsistent practice within the Designs Office, where several GUIs had already been registered:
- Siemens Nos. 274917, 2749178
- Kneevoice No. 284680
- LG No. 276736
This underscored the absence of any per se exclusion and reinforced the need for uniform application of law.
Judgements With Complete Citation Discussed And Decision Of Court, Point Of Law Settled In The Case
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd (2025 SCC Online SC 780) | Two-pronged test distinguishing artistic work and industrial design under Section 15(2) |
| Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs Apple Inc (137 S.Ct. 429) | Broad interpretation of “article” |
| Microsoft Corporation vs Corel Corporation (5:15-cv-05836-EJD) | Software as article of manufacture |
| K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application [1982] R.P.C. 166 | Activation-based visibility acceptable |
| In re: Hruby (54 C.C.P.A. 1196) | No requirement of permanence |
| Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 | Updating construction principle |
Final Decision Of The Court
The decision of the court was unanimous in allowing all appeals. The impugned orders dated:
- 1 October 2019 (IPDAID/21/2024)
- 20 September 2019 (IPDAID/22/2024)
- 17 February 2025 (IPDAID/1/2025 and IPDAID/2/2025)
- 31 May 2024 (IPDAID/3/2025)
were set aside in their entirety. All applications were remanded to the Controller for fresh consideration after affording full opportunity of hearing to the respective appellants, directing the authorities to apply the correct legal tests articulated in the judgment.
Point Of Law Settled
The point of law settled in the case is that Graphic User Interfaces satisfy the criteria of a “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 2(a) and are eligible for registration on a case-to-case basis when the visual features are applied to an identifiable article by an industrial process (broadly understood to encompass digital rendering) and are judged solely by the eye, with no statutory requirement of permanence, separate saleability, or exclusion on the ground of dual protection with copyright; the inclusion of GUIs in Locarno Class 14-04 further evidences legislative intent to protect digital designs, subject only to the fulfilment of the statutory ingredients.
Case Details
- Case Title: NEC Corporation Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and another
- Date of Order: 09.03.2026
- Case Number: IPDAID/21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025 & IPDAID/3/2025
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:71
- Name of court: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (Intellectual Property Rights Division)
- Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Disclaimer
Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
