For a decade, India’s Designs Office has blown hot and cold on one of the most commercially valuable categories of modern design — the graphical user interface. Some GUI applications were granted; many were refused on a thicket of objections about “articles,” “industrial processes” and impermanence. The Calcutta High Court has now cut through that thicket. In a common judgment in NEC Corporation v. The Controller [IPDAID/21/2024] and connected matters (Erbe Elektromedizin, two Abiomed appeals, and TVS Motor Company), the Court held that GUIs are registrable under the Designs Act, 2000, and that this approach aligns India with the 90%-plus of jurisdictions that already protect screen designs.
The objections — and why they fell
The refusals had rested on a familiar set of propositions: a GUI is not “applied to an article” by an industrial process; it is not itself an “article” because it is neither manufactured nor sold independently; the screen is the article, not the GUI; GUIs lack permanence, being visible only when the device is on; and GUIs are anyway protected as artistic works under copyright, barring dual protection. The Court took each apart. Reading Sections 2(d) and 2(a) closely, it held that a design need only be “applied to” an article — the design and the article are “distinct, independent and separate,” so the design need not be the article. “Article of manufacture” is broad and generic and is not confined to a tangible, physical object; even software has been recognised as an article of manufacture in comparative jurisprudence.
Crucially, the word “any” before “industrial process” in Section 2(d) makes the phrase non-exhaustive: displaying a GUI through the interplay of electronic signal manipulation and hardware rendering is itself an industrial process. The Court expressly disapproved the restrictive view taken in UST Global (Singapore) v. Controller — that a GUI must be integral to and permanently visible on the article, and that “industrial process” is limited to manual, mechanical or chemical processes.
Updating construction, Locarno and visibility
The Court invoked the principle of “updating construction” — that a statute should be read to keep pace with technological change — drawing on the Australian Full Federal Court in Aristocrat Technologies Australia v. Commissioner of Patents [2025 FCAFC 131] . It clarified the limited role of the Locarno Classification: India’s adoption of Class 14-04 (“screen displays and icons”) via the Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 signals intent to protect digital designs, but classification is administrative and cannot, by itself, confer or exclude substantive rights — registration still answers to Sections 2(a) and 2(d). On impermanence, the Court held there is no statutory requirement of permanent visibility; visibility during intended use suffices, just as with a lampshade or a watch display.
Functionality and the dual-protection bogey
On the function objection, the Court held that a design is excluded only where its appearance is solely dictated by function with no room for eye appeal; the Controller must not conflate functionality with visual appeal, because a GUI’s layout, icons and colour schemes can carry independent aesthetic value. And on dual protection, it harmonised the regimes: Section 2(d) excludes artistic works, while Section 15 of the Copyright Act limits copyright once a design is industrially applied. A GUI is a visual interface, not the underlying computer program, and — following the Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment v. Inox India [2025 SCC OnLine SC 780] — once visual features are industrially applied to an article, they fall within design law. The Court also tied the outcome to India’s TRIPS Article 25 obligations and the international drift signalled by the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.
Why it matters
This is a genuine landmark, not a one-off. By grounding GUI protection in a careful reading of the existing statute — rather than waiting for legislative amendment — the Court has given Indian and foreign applicants in consumer electronics, medical devices, automotive dashboards and fintech a workable path to register screen designs, and has disciplined an inconsistent administrative practice. Two watch-points remain. First, this is a High Court decision; until the Designs Act is itself amended (a process now in motion — see this blog’s note on the proposed Designs Act amendments), the Office may continue to resist at the margins. Second, the hard work shifts to substance: novelty, originality and the functionality carve-out will now decide individual GUI applications, rather than a blanket eligibility bar. For now, India’s interfaces finally have their day in the design register.
Sources & further reading: Designs Act, 2000; Aristocrat Technologies (Australia, 2025 FCAFC 131); Cryogas Equipment v. Inox India; UST Global v. Controller.
Educational note: This case summary is general information, not legal advice.