Graphical User Interfaces are Registrable Designs; clarifies the Calcutta High Court

Introduction

The Indian Courts have in recent times tried to keep up with the pace of digital innovations, and in doing so, have rendered liberal interpretations of the law. Be it understanding the personality rights of digital creators[1] or gauging the level of protection required for AI-generated works[2] under copyrights, or protecting rights of brand owners in respect of their non-conventional trademarks, Indian Courts have come a long way.

Recently, the judgment rendered by the Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court in recognizing that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are registrable as industrial designs under the Designs Act, 2000 (the “Designs Act”), provided they meet other criteria under the design law’s framework, is viewed as a landmark ruling.

The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court pronounced their decision[3] in a batch of statutory appeals filed by NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Abiomed Inc., and TVS Motor Company Limited, each challenging refusal orders relating to their GUIs/ display-screen design applications. While deciding the appeals, the Single Judge discarded the views of the Controller and sent back the matters to the Controller for their careful assessment and consideration of the GUI subjects for design registration.

Before moving into the studying and analysing the issues for consideration before the Single Judge Bench, the Court went on to analyse and clarify the scope of GUI, i.e., as a form of user interface which allows user to interact with electronic devices through graphical icons and visuals in indicators such as secondary notation.

While the perspectives of the Judge in the matter are important from jurisprudential perspective, the ruling also streamlines the Indian design regulator’s approach to their assessments on the subject of GUIs in line with modern needs as well as the international standards.

Background of the Case

The batch of appeals from the rejection orders of the Controller, as filed before the Calcutta High Court, raised a common question regarding whether GUI satisfies the criteria of a design, making it eligible for protection and registration under the Designs Act.

The predominant argument that has been put forth by all the Appellants in the case is that there is a misconceived notion among the authorities in the Indian Design Office that GUI is not registrable as a design under the Designs Act, even when GUI have been included as an article under the Locarno Classification[4] and the adaptation to changes demanded by contemporary technological advancements is required. Thus, aggrieved by the rejection decisions rendered by the Controller of the Design Office, the Appellants have approached the Calcutta High Court to challenge the refusal orders.

Impugned Orders of the Controller, Design Office

The common thread of argument raised by the Controller at the Design Office to refuse recognition and registration of GUI related design applications, is given as below:

Firstly, any design wherein the novelty is residing in the shape and pattern of the display screen with the GUI has been rejected on the basis that GUI does not constitute an article[5] under the purview of the Designs Act, 2000. As per the Controller’s office, it is in fact the display screen hosting the GUI which qualifies as an article, thereby, rendering GUI incapable of being registered as a design;
Secondly, it has been largely agreed upon by all the officers that since GUI is not applied through an industrial process to an article, therefore it cannot be recognized as a design;
Thirdly, as per the understanding of the design authorities, GUI merely consists of software codes and is only seen when an associated device is switched on. Therefore, on the ground of lack of permanence, the registration of GUI as a design has been denied;
Lastly, another ground of rejection raised by the Controller is that the design of a GUI cannot be considered as finished article, thus incapable of being judged solely by the eye and devoid of a sense of touch.

Arguments Raised by the Controller before the Court

In the appeal, it was argued by the Controller that although GUI has been introduced as a category of industrial design capable of registration by virtue of the Design Amendment Rules 2021, however, there has been no corresponding amendment to the Designs Act which allows such registration. Moreover, there has been no amendment to the definition of ‘design’[6] or ‘article’ under the Designs Act.

It was submitted on behalf of the Controller that design is an integral part of an article and such design cannot be separated or have an independent existence from the article to which it has been applied. Additionally, it lacks permanence as the same is only visible when the electronic device in the finished article is switched on.

Lastly, it was contended that GUI cannot be protected under the Designs Act, since it is already protected under the Copyright Act, 1957 (the “Copyright Act”) as an artistic work[7], and there cannot be any dual protection of the same subject under two different statutes. Moreover, the Controller refused to rely upon any foreign precedent stating that such reliance would be misplaced and erroneous in light of the different definitions accorded to design across different jurisdictions.

Submissions of the Amicus Curiae

Given the importance of the issues at hand, the Hon’ble Court appointed an Amicus Curiae[8] to throw some light in the ongoing issues at hand. The Amicus Curiae submitted that the Locarno Classification merely provided a clarificatory guidance which was limited to assisting in the filing and search for an application of a design. Such inclusion of the GUIs under Locarno Classification did not assist in qualifying design protection for GUIs.

At the same time, the Amicus Curiae pointed out that the Designs Act protects the shape, configuration, pattern, ornament and composition of colours. In this regard, a GUI also inherently comprises of iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation which falls within the ambit of visual features that the Designs Act considers as registrable.

Moreover, with respect to the idea of permanence of design as highlighted by the Controller in the refusal orders, it was contended by the Amicus Curiae that the Designs Act does not focus on any design being permanently visible. Thus, the concept of permanence has been wrongly understood and erroneously included within the definition of design in the refusal orders issued by the design authorities.

Further, in terms of GUI being capable of being judged solely by the eye, the same has been complied with by the applicants in their respective applications, since the finished article includes the final product received by the consumer which can be analysed to the complete device or relevant display unit.

Lastly, it was put forth by the Amicus Curiae that there should not be any outright exclusion of GUI from the purview of design registration and the same ought to be decided on a case-to-case basis.

Observations by the Calcutta High Court

The Single Judge Bench delved deep into the issue at hand and clarified the legal positioning pertaining to recognition of GUI as a design. The following points below comprehensively deal with the observations made by the Hon’ble Court:

1. Analysing and Comparing the Definitions of ‘Design’ and ‘Article’

The Court analysed the definition of ‘design’ and ‘article’ under the Designs Act in order to bring out a difference between both. The Court observed that the definition of design has both positive as well as negative features. The positive part refers to the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours which are applied to any article, whether 2D or 3D, through any industrial process, and that is further applied in the finished article which can be solely judged by the eye. The negative part refers to exclusion of any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device.

On the other hand, the definition of an ‘article’ under the Designs Act can be divided into (i) article of manufacture; (ii) any substance artificial or partly artificial and partly natural; and (iii) includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately.

Upon looking through both the definitions, the Court opined that ‘design’ and ‘article’ are distinct and independent concepts and cannot be used interchangeably. In case of a GUI, the Court opined that an article may vary on a case-to-case basis. The Court was of the view that the design authorities have erred in their understanding of both the definitions by interpreting the word ‘design’, which is an abstract concept, to a physical or tangible ‘article’. The design authorities have adopted a narrow approach by basing their argument on the premise that every article must have an element of physical embodiment. By harbouring such a narrow understanding, concepts such as GUI would never be capable of design registration as they exist in virtual but tangible forms.

2. Applied to an Article by any Industrial Process

The Court observed that the design authorities have yet again adopted a narrow understanding of the phrase ‘industrial process’ wherein they have limited the same to only ‘manual, mechanical or chemical processes’. In doing so, they have made a glaring mistake in ignoring the presence or the word ‘any’ which calls for a broad interpretation of the phrase ‘industrial process’. The Court held that the words ‘manual’, ‘mechanical’ and ‘chemical’ were merely indicative so as to determine what could comprise as ‘industrial process’, and therefore, called for a liberal interpretation of the phrase.

3. Principle of Updating Construction

For the purpose of interpretation of the Designs Act, the Court applied the principle of ‘updating construction’[9] under the principles of the interpretation of statutes. The principle provides for interpretation of a legal provision in light of the surrounding changes and developments taking place in modern day. Applying the said principle, the Court observed that the phrase ‘industrial process’ should be interpreted in such a manner to include technical and scientific advancement in the field. In doing so, given the involvement of digital and physical processes, the application of GUI to a display surface falls under the ambit of the evolving concept of ‘industrial process’.

4. Concept of Permanence

As contended by the Amicus Curiae, the Court also observed that the Designs Act does not make any mention of a design being permanently visible. The Court held a clear stance that the law only talks about design features being ‘applied’ to an article, and not ‘permanently applied’. In such a case, the term ‘applied’ must be accorded a broad and generic meaning. According to the Court, the design authorities have erred in including the concept of ‘permanence of design’ in their refusal orders.

5. Judged Solely by the Eye

The Court stated that in order to be considered as a design under the Act, a GUI applied to a finished article should be capable of being judged solely by the eye. The Court identified two aspects in this regard, namely, (i) what is the finished article; and (ii) whether GUIs being functional designs are excluded from protection.

The Court opined that while GUIs are functional in nature, they also include aesthetic features which have been completely ignored by the design authorities at the time of rendering their orders. The Court held a clear stance that a design is only excluded from being granted protection when it only includes functional features, and has no room for eye appeal.

Relying on Cryogas v. Inox India[10],the Court also noted that an artistic work may become a registrable design when features such as shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation are applied to an article through an industrial process and result in a finished article appealing to the eye.In the present case, given that GUI also does include aesthetic features, they are capable of or qualify receiving the protection as industrial designs under the Designs Act.

6. Locarno Classification

The Court analysed the argument raised by the Controller that the mere inclusion of GUI in the Locarno Classification does not guarantee its qualification for design registration under the Designs Act in India. In doing so, the Court first reminded the Controller that India had accepted the Locarno Agreement, 1968, which subsequently resulted in amendments to the Designs Rules in 2021. On this basis, the Court opined that the inclusion of the GUI in the Locarno Classification clearly reflected the legislative mindset at a global level to recognize and protect GUI as design.

However, the Court stated that it is correct that the inclusion of the GUI under Locarno Classification does not automatically guarantee qualification for design registration, and the requirements under Section 2(a)[11] and 2(d)[12] of the Act, must be satisfied.

7. No Dual Protection

The Court stated the definition of ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes design registration to any artistic work as defined under Section 2(c)[13] of the Copyright Act. Moreover, the Copyright Act also prevents duality of protection by stating that copyright does not exist in a design that is registered under the Designs Act[14]. Therefore, the statutes are well equipped within themselves to rule out any situation of duality of protection.

The Court further held that once the features namely shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation etc are applied to an ‘article of commerce’ and meant for industrial purposes, it ceases being an ‘artistic work’, and becomes a ‘design’. In this case, a GUI as a design does not create any dual protection because the legal character of a GUI when integrated and industrially applied to an article differs from a standard artistic work or computer programme.

Concluding Remarks

The judgment rendered by the Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court is based on the simple philosophy of how laws need to adapt to the rapidly changing technological advancements and developments. The Court has rightly called out the narrow approach adopted by the design authorities time and again while interpreting the legal provisions. The interpretations that have been employed by the design authorities turn a blind eye to the growing importance of digitization and its impact on intellectual property rights.

When the existing statutory design protection practices are unable to bridge the gap between the traditional concepts and the digital innovations, such as, those with respect to GUIs; the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Court is like breath of fresh air, encompassing a liberal and more flexible understanding of the framework.

It is noteworthy to account that the ruling should not be read as an automatic approval of all GUI design applications. The design rights’ claimants will still need to identify the relevant article, define the visual features claimed, separate aesthetic elements from functional ones, and satisfy the general standards of novelty and registrability under the Designs Act. The decision therefore opens the door for design protection of GUIs in India, but leaves the actual grant of protection to a case-specific examination.

Contributed by: Aditi Verma Thakur and Doyita Mukherjee

[1] Raj Sharmani & Anr. v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors, CS(COMM) 1233/2025 & I.As. 28616-19/2025

[2] Stephen L. Thaler v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2026

[3] NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr. (judgment dated 9 March 2026)

[4] The Locarno Classification, established by the Locarno Agreement (1968), is an international classification used for the purposes of the registration of industrial designs.

[5] Section 2(a) of Designs Act, 2000 – “article” means any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, or partly artificial and partly natural; and includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately;

[6] Section 2(d) of Designs Act, 2000 – “design” means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957).

[7] Section 2(c) of Copyright Act, 1957 – “artistic work” means,— (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; (ii) a [work of architecture]; and (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship.

[8] A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks.

[9] In jurisprudence, an ‘updating construction’ is an approach to interpreting statutes where courts treat laws as “always speaking”. Judges modify the application of older laws to reflect modern realities and social and technological changes, without needing the lawmakers to rewrite the act.

[10] Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Limited, Civil Appeal No 5174 of 2025

[11] Supra Note 5.

[12] Supra Note 6.

[13] Supra Note 7.

[14] Section 15(1), Copyright Act, 1957 – Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)]