Calcutta HC Holds Graphical User Interfaces Can Be Registered as Designs; Sets Aside Controller’s Orders

In a significant ruling concerning the protection of digital designs, the Calcutta High Court has held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not per se excluded from design protection under the Designs Act, 2000, and that applications seeking registration of such designs must be examined on a case-to-case basis.

The Court observed that the Designs Office had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the statutory definitions of “article” and “design” while rejecting several GUI-related design applications.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, sitting in the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the High Court, allowed a batch of statutory appeals filed by technology and manufacturing companies including NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Abiomed Inc., and TVS Motor Company Limited.

The Court set aside the orders of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their design registration applications and directed that the matters be reconsidered afresh after applying the correct legal tests under the Designs Act.

The appeals arose from decisions of the Designs Office refusing to register designs relating to display screens containing graphical user interfaces.

In each of the impugned orders, the authorities had taken the view that a GUI could not qualify as a “design” under the Designs Act because it did not constitute an “article” within the meaning of Section 2(a).

The Controller had reasoned that GUIs exist only as software-generated images visible when a device is switched on and therefore lack permanence. Since a GUI cannot be manufactured or sold independently of the device hosting it, the Designs Office concluded that it did not meet the statutory requirements for design registration.

Challenging these findings, the appellants argued that the Designs Office had proceeded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act. According to them, the statutory scheme does not require the design itself to be an article. Rather, the law contemplates that a design may be applied to an article and the relevant article, in the case of a GUI, would be the display screen or the finished device, such as a phone, tablet, monitor or vehicle dashboard on which the interface appears.

They submitted that GUIs involve visual elements such as icons, layout structures, colour combinations and graphical arrangements that are capable of being judged solely by the eye, thereby falling squarely within the definition of “design” under Section 2(d) of the Act.

The appellants further contended that the Designs Office had wrongly read additional requirements into the statute.

They argued that the Act does not require a design to possess physical permanence or tactile features; Nor does it mandate that the design itself be manufactured or sold separately from the article.

According to the appellants, these requirements had been artificially introduced by the authorities through an overly restrictive interpretation of the law.

They also pointed out that the impugned orders were based on the mistaken premise that foreign judicial decisions concerning design protection were irrelevant to the Indian statutory framework.

In some appeals, particularly those filed by TVS Motor Company Limited, the appellants also alleged procedural irregularities.

It was argued that the impugned orders were non-speaking and failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the design applications, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Opposing the appeals, the Controller of Patents and Designs contended that although the Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 incorporated the Locarno Classification which recognises screen displays and icons, the Designs Act itself had not been amended to expressly include GUIs within the scope of design protection.

The authorities further argued that a design must be applied to an article through an industrial process and must form an integral part of that article.

Since GUIs are visible only when an electronic device is activated and disappear when it is switched off, they lack permanence and cannot be treated as designs applied to an article.

The Controller also submitted that GUIs could already be protected as artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Allowing protection under the Designs Act in addition to copyright, it was argued, would result in impermissible dual protection.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court found that the approach adopted by the Designs Office was legally untenable.

The bench observed that the Designs Act protects visual features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation and composition of lines or colours applied to an article which appeal to the eye; A graphical user interface inherently consists of visual elements including iconography, layouts, colour schemes and graphical arrangements, all of which fall within the kinds of features contemplated by the statute.

The Court rejected the contention that a design must itself be an article. It clarified that the statutory requirement is that a design be applied to an article, and the design and article are conceptually distinct. In the case of GUIs, the relevant article could be the display unit or the final consumer product incorporating the display, such as a smartphone or automobile dashboard.

Addressing the argument that GUIs lack permanence, the Court held that the Designs Act contains no requirement that a design be permanently visible; Many designs become apparent only when the product is used in its intended manner.

The Court observed that the absence of continuous visibility does not disqualify a design from protection so long as the design becomes visible during the normal use of the article.

On the issue of dual protection, the Court clarified that the Designs Act and the Copyright Act already contain provisions to prevent overlapping protection. Once an artistic work is industrially applied to produce a design, the statutory framework ensures that copyright protection ceases in accordance with Section 15 of the Copyright Act.

Consequently, recognising GUI designs under the Designs Act would not automatically result in impermissible dual protection.

The Court also observed that the Designs Office had erred in refusing to consider foreign jurisprudence on design protection. Decisions from other jurisdictions interpreting similar statutory provisions may have persuasive value and can assist in understanding evolving technological contexts.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the orders rejecting the design applications and remanded the matters to the Controller of Patents and Designs for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

For Appellants: Mr. Sayantan Basu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Tanmoy Roy, Ms. Aheriya Roy, Ms. Vindhya S. Mani, Ms. Taniya Roy, Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Mr. S. Banerjee, Mr. Pratiksha Varshney, Mr. Pradipta Bose, Ms. Smriti Yadav, Mr. Shubrojyoti Mookherjee, Mr. Sagnik Bose, Mr. Shubham Shende, Mr. Vishwas Sethuraman and Ms. A. Sinha, Advs.

For Respondents (Controller of Patents and Designs): Ms. Sanjukta Gupta, Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Ujjal Rajak, Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Mr. Brajesh Jha, Ms. Sumita Sarkar and Mr. A. Banerjee, Advs.

Case Title: NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. and connected matters

Bench: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Date of Judgment: 09.03.2026