Beyond the Tangibility Trap: Analysing the Shift from Physical Articles to Virtual Design Protection for GUIs and Metaverse Icons in Light of NEC Corporation (2026)

Introduction: The Evolution of User Interfaces from Functional Code to Aesthetic Asset

Historically, the legal and technological views of User Interfaces (UIs) were created by a purely functional paradigm. In the early days of computing, the interface was simply a utilitarian medium; several command-line prompts were used to connect the human mind to the machine. However, the fundamental shift towards Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) has changed how we think about UIs. Today, a GUI does not just serve an operational purpose, but also serves as a sophisticated aesthetic asset that represents a brand’s identity, consumer psychology, and creative ingenuity.

In today’s digital economy, the visual arrangement of icons, the smoothness of animations, and the “look and feel” of an app are, in many cases, as important as the source code itself. This movement from “function-first” to “design-forward” has created great pressure on traditional Intellectual Property (IP) laws. While copyright protects the literal code, the aesthetic and industrial qualities of the interface, the visual language of the digital world, need protection under Design Law. As we enter into the immersive reality of the Metaverse, we must evolve our legal framework to treat pixels with the same industrial significance as the hardware that runs them.

The Pre-2026 Struggles: The “Tangible Edge Cases” and Section 2(a)

For many years, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) as well as the Controller of Designs had traditionally taken a rigid, materialistic approach to the Designs Act of 2000, including the overall interpretation of “Article” in order to determine if an item could be registered as a design.

As a result, this rigid interpretation created two principal obstacles for the registration of graphic user interfaces (GUIs):

• The Design Registration Requirement Based on “Permanent” Innovation- Under the current regime, the IPO treated the GUI as a non-permanent image that existed only when the device was powered on, meaning that the image was not considered by the IPO to be an inherent and physical part of the hardware used by the device, which meant that the GUI did not have the “permanance” standard established under the Trials and Tribulations of the Designs Act of 2000, was not protected by registration because it did not have a permanent characteristic due to its lack of physical presence.

• The Design Registration Requirement Based on Tangibility- The “Tangible Edge Case” Doctrine – As an example, a GUIs were only eligible for registration in those instances where a design existed on a tangible object (i.e., an object that was of a physical nature), which means that a protective registration could not occur in those instances where the GUI was to be used for providing an end-user experience. This narrow interpretation created a significant protection gap for tech giants and UI/UX designers, leaving their most valuable consumer-facing innovations vulnerable to “look-alike” piracy.

NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2026)

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs March 9th, 2026, marks an important change in how to treat digital Intellectual Property (IP) in India, as this ruling ended the antiquated requirement of “tangibility” which had previously inhibited the digital IP development in India. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur issued a consolidated ruling with respect to multiple rulings from the Design Office rejecting Graphical User Interfaces (“GUI”) and characterised the Design Office as being “pre-judicially biased” towards a point of view related to physical embodiments.

Article and the Principle of Technological Neutrality

A key element to the Court’s determination was the interpretation of Section 2(a) of the Designs Act, 2000. The Controller argued that the GUI could not be an “article” since it cannot be commodified and thus cannot be sold or manufactured independently of its hardware. The Court ruled that the statute did not require that the design be the article; rather, that the design must be affixed to an article of manufacture. The Court emphasised that legal definitions need to keep pace with the developments and enhancements in technology by pulling from the concept of “updating construction”. Therefore, a “display screen” or the end product (such as a smartphone or dashboard in a vehicle) would be the valid article of manufacture to which the design of the GUI is visually affixed.

Redefinition of the industrial process

A significant disagreement was posed as to whether the process of digitally rendering a picture could be considered an industrial process as laid out in Section 2(d) of the Act. The controller of copyright had taken the position that software producing these types of images is not a process conducted by manual, mechanical, or chemical means of the type defined in the Act. The court rejected this narrow interpretation of the statutory expression, holding that the term “any”, which precedes the phrase industrial process, entails the broad scope of that term. It was therefore concluded that the use of electronic signals to produce an image in a systematic fashion and by way of advanced equipment constitutes an industrial process in the contemporary sense.

Finally, the court considered the objection raised by the controller of copyright that the designs produced using a graphical user interface lack permanence, as they would not be visible when the device is turned off. In addressing this issue, the court asserted that there is no requirement contained within Section 2(d) for “permanent visibility”. The court used the analogy of a lampshade being not visible until the lamp produces light, to conclude that so long as a design is capable of being seen in the normal use of the article, it is valid as a design. Through this analysis, the court effectively recognised that the creation of temporary digital assets in the form of animations and icons can be protected under the copyright laws and provided a clear means for protecting digital designs created in the emerging Metaverse.

Legislative Horizon: The 2026 Concept Note and the Move Toward Virtual Design Sovereignty

The Indian judiciary has taken immediate action to correct the issue with GUI protection; however, the longer-term solution for the stability of digital IP in India lies in developing statutory law through legislation. In January 2026, The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) published an important Concept Note highlighting the need to amend the Designs Act, 2000, to address the conflicts created by the 2000 Act with respect to the digital economy. The DPIIT’s Concept Note outlines a plan for revising the Designs Act, 2000, which includes harmonising Indian Law with both the Riyadh Design Law Treaty and modifications to the Locarno Classification Digital-First updates.

When an “Article” does not Exist in the Physical World: Redefining Article

The most significant aspect of the proposed 2026 Amendments is redefining the definition of “Article” as described under Section 2(a). The DPIIT has proposed replacing the requirement of “a physical article of manufacture” with a broader definition of “non-physical articles.” This change recognises that in the 21st Century, articles may exist solely as a result of the digital environment (e.g., virtual wearables, holographic display technology, or an icon created by software), which do not require a direct connection to a specific piece of hardware. Similarly, by removing the design from a specific physical item, India will be able to offer “Virtual Design Patents” to the start-up sectors of the SaaS and Gaming Industries, thereby providing them with a mechanism for “protecting” against digital clones.

The addition of Class 32 and Dynamic Designs

The 2026 roadmap will address the procedural barriers associated with Class 32 (under the Locarno Classification Class 32, which in industrial design covers graphic symbols, logos, surface patterns, and ornamentation). For many years, designs under this class were submitted to the Design Office, but the Design Office has consistently refused to allow such designs to be registered. The proposed amendments state that “Graphic Symbols and Screen Displays” will be protected as a statutory right; In addition, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade is considering creating protection for “Dynamic Designs,” which would allow for protecting animated sequences and transitions that define modern user experiences. This foresight in legislation will provide India’s industries the legal basis to move into the Metaverse and use spatial computing, and the legal framework will not be simply responsive to such changes but will provide a strong foundation for innovation in the digital space.

The Metaverse Frontier: 3D Icons, Virtual Wearables, and Immersive Interfaces

As technology continues to evolve towards spatial computing, the need for expanding design protections far beyond the traditional 2D screen becomes even more important. As we shift into the Metaverse, the user interface goes beyond being a simple 2D interface (overlaid on top of the real-world) and transforms into being an immersive experience where all of the primary assets are represented in 3D: e.g., 3D icons (representing information), and a person’s avatar; or virtual wearables (such as clothes) made by virtual designers.

By having the legal framework to protect “spatial designs,” beginning in 2026, we will be able to protect all of the aesthetic characteristics of a design when viewed spatially, based on the depth, texture and volume of digital objects such as virtual “skins” (or wearables) in a decentralised platform like Decentraland. In addition, animated user interfaces (i.e., transitions and haptic-feedback visual cues that guide a user through an immersive experience) will also be classified as “Dynamic Designs.” These adjustments to the U.S. intellectual property framework will be key for brand owners in preventing “digital counterfeits” in virtual marketplaces.

As the boundaries between the physical and digital worlds begin to merge, being able to obtain design rights for immersive assets will help to ensure the maintained protection of the “visual essence” of brands regardless of the medium used to display the brand (i.e., web pages or VR) or whether there is a physical substrate to the brand (i.e., if there is a physical good).

Conclusion & Strategy: Navigating the New Design Paradigm

Designers must carefully navigate Section 15(2) “Copyright-Design Overlap.” Under the Copyright Act, 1957, a design loses protection if it is replicated more than 50 times by industrial processes without being registered under the Designs Act. With digital assets being infinitely reproducible, registering a GUI as a design is no longer an optional step, but a defensive measure against putting that asset into the public domain. By utilising filing strategies that follow the NEC Corporation principles and the 2026 Amendments, firms can transform ephemeral pixels into legally enforceable, high-value marketable assets.

Author: Harsh Jain, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Endnotes

1. NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta High Court, Judgment dated 9 March 2026 (recognising the registrability of Graphical User Interfaces under the Designs Act, 2000).

2. The Designs Act, 2000, particularly Sections 2(a), 2(d), 4, 5 and 15, Government of India.

3. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Concept Note on Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 (January 2026), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India.

4. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Locarno Classification for Industrial Designs, 15th Edition (including Class 32 – Graphic Symbols, Logos, Surface Patterns and Ornamentation).

5. Riyadh Design Law Treaty, adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the Diplomatic Conference on the Design Law Treaty, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2024 (establishing international harmonisation principles for industrial design protection, including digital design filing procedures).