Can India Protect UI/UX Designs? The GUI Gap under the Design Act, 2000

Introduction : UI/UX is not just a design, it is a product identity. It is the most important part of a “product” in the digital economy. Why?

In a fintech app, trust can be gained easily but lost at the interface as it is dependent on KYC flow, clear prompts, and predictable screens are the variables in the happening of a payment or an exit. In cases of E-commerce, UI/UX has to be clear with their screening and the designs. Whether the consumer will be stuck in a browsing loop or they will be able to checkout from “add to cart”. When it comes to food delivery apps: search filters, cart, live tracking of their order becomes a habit for the consumer. UI/UX designs are playing an important role and companies have started investing in the design just the way they did for technology. If a company invests in a design and they totally align with their business, it becomes a business asset and increases brand recall, sales rate, and customer loyalty.

UI/UX’s credibility of becoming a product identity has also been proved by Mckinsey's study of 300 companies. The study has been thoroughly researched over the period of 5 years and states that design isn’t only about the looks, it measures business capability of the company and reasoning is that a better business design increases business performance. That's why interface choice has become a commercial signature and UI/UX became an IP asset (specifically for startups). Even though Interface has become an essential part of business growth of a company, it still does not fit into India’s conventional IP buckets. The aim of this article is to interrogate the regulatory gap between India’s traditional industrial design regime and contemporary UI/UX innovation, and it also outlines integrated and commercially adaptive legal solutions. 

Understanding The Legal Gap And The Path Forward

The legal challenge emerges due to structural inconsistency of modern digital design with the statutory framework of Indian Design Law. Though user interfaces serve as design assets with commercial value in the marketplace, The Designs Act, 2000 (“Act”) was constituted as per a tangible, product- centric framework. Section 2(d) of the Act defines “design” as visual features of shape, pattern, or ornament applied to an article applied by an industrial process and judged solely by the eye. Also read with Section 2(a) of the Act which defines “article” as a manufactured item and the law assumes it to be physically identifiable to be a subject of protection. The statutory requirement of a design to be applied to an “article” has generated contextual tension when the law to be applied to Graphical User Interfaces (“GUI”) as it is a screen based visual layer made through software execution.

Moreover, the Designs Office have claimed GUI applications to be doctrinally problematic. The refusals in practice have been predicated on three recurrent grounds: (a) the subject matter can not be considered a design “applied to an article”; (b) the GUI is software-driven or functional in character and (c) the interface is only usable when device is in “ON” mode and these grounds were culminated in the refusal which ultimately resulted in the Calcutta High Court’s decision in UST Global (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs. The Indian Design Law was only built for physical products and digital interfaces do not fit in that statutory framework. Adding to this, Delhi High Court restated in the case of Jayson Industries & And. V. Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. (a non-GUI dispute) the traditional interpretation of “article” as a tangible entity and explicated that design law only protects the finished article and not an abstract idea.

If a GUI cannot be doctrinally connected to an “article”, it is vulnerable to objections at a certain point. In that context, UST Global (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (Calcutta High Court) represents a turning point: the court set aside the refusal and acknowledged that a  GUI may satisfy Section 2(d) as it has a visual appeal and is applied to a finished article through an industrial process. The court rejects the “ON-mode visibility” objection and underscoring  the significance of Locarno-linked GUI/screen- display classes. Even though this case was a positive development of GUI in Indian Design Law, this does not completely solve the problem. In practice, Courts claimed that GUIs are not automatically disqualified yet the design office continues to be inconsistent as some GUIs applications are accepted and still some are rejected.

So, for companies specially Tech Startups, Fintech, Consumer app, it creates risk. If the companies rely only on the design registration, they might face objections and delays and they will eventually struggle to enforce the right later. Inconsistency results in Investor’s confidence, company’s valuation, M&A due diligence and Licensing Negotiations.  The WIPO Standing Committee’s Joint Recommendation on GUI designs (SCT/44/6 Rev. 4) backs the notion on the fact that the industrial design protection for GUIS should operate independently of the device’s operating status, the period of  on-screen visibility, or the manner of installation, rejecting ON/OFF mode limits as basis to deny protection. Therefore, layered protection is a commercially prudent response, such as targeted design filings where feasible, copyright over the original interface work, trade mark or trade dress where the interface functions as a commercial origin marker, and contracts to procure ownership and confidentiality. 

After the UST Global case, the most commercially acceptable position for creators is to manage the process of UI/UX protection as a portfolio problem and not a single-statute solution. Courts and the Designs Office may be shifting forward to consider screen-based subject matter but Indian Design Law wants a finished article, something physical, and judged “solely by the eye” and a digital interface is not always physical. This has also been reflected in Jayson Industries & And. v. Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. (3 July 2023). Due to this uncertainty, there’s always going to be risk. 

Copyright has usually been treated as the most reliable and fastest first layer for UI/UX creators as many interface assets are already “works” under the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”) under Section 13(1)(a) r/w Section 2(c) and Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act. Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act defines “artistic work” which include drawings, graphics, further visual creations, and many UI/UX elements like icons, illustrations, screen-layouts and interface work. They are protected as Artistic works under the Copyright Act because of their originality. Section 2(o) defines “literary works” and extends protection to computer programmes and compilations, which covers interface code and structured screen databases where creative selection and arrangement are involved.

The protection given by the Copyright Act to UI/UX elements only given to the exact graphic representation i.e, composition, iconography, arrangement, and graphical choices which are given on the screen and only these are qualified as the original artistic or literary work and statutory rights specified under Section 14 of the Copyright Act which is reproduction, adaptation, and communication to the public are triggered. Thus, any unauthorised copying of UI/UX designs or any other visual representation may give rise to infringement where substantial copying of protected expression is established. However, issues rise in ownership and chain-of-title where startups lose leverage as under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, copyright right is given first to the author, subject to specific exclusions for employment and some commissioned works. The UI/UX designs are created by freelancers, agencies, or even interns so first ownership remains with the creator unless the relationship between the company and the creator has been clearly structured.

Therefore, the assignment clause under section 18 and 19 is not optional for companies. The provisions require that the copyright assignment to be in writing, signed and explicitly state the work, rights granted, time frame and territorial extent of it and if this is omitted, statutory rights apply which potentially limits the ownership in scope or time. Payment does not transfer title and without a compliant assignment, startups might face risk later for assets they paid for entirely but do not fully own it. 

Trademark and trade dress protection is relevant for UI/UX as it functions as a “trade mark” as per Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (“Trademark Act”) when the elements of interface are distinguished with the goods or services from those offered by the competitors and once registered, Section 28 bestows the proprietor of the said trade mark an exclusive right to use it and get relief in case of infringement. Infringement of a trademark is covered under Section 29 of the Trademark Act  which protects any use of identical or misleadingly similar marks which will cause confusion, association or unfair advantage in the future. Even when a mark is unregistered, Section 27(2) protects common law remedy of passing off.

This section constitutes the doctrinal foundation of trade dress claims relating to overall appearance, structure, and presentation in India. For UI/UX creators, protection under the Trademark Act is only strongest when the interface elements function as source identifiers of origin instead of mere designs. As Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act restricts registration of non distinctive marks and Section 9(3) does not include functional shapes. Therefore, in accordance with all the provisions effective interface-branding claims can be protected only when it is distinctive i.e, what makes it unique and brand related and does not protect non-functional visual elements.

Now, Contracts are the most strongest layer to the protection of UI/UX designs as IP law states what can be protected but Contract law ensures who actually owns the design. While copyright protection comes from the Copyright Act, enforcement of ownership transfers depends on a valid agreement under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”). Copyright assignments must comply with the  Copyright Act which includes a written and signed instrument, laying down duration and territory and in UI/UX assets that is created by freelancers, agencies, employees, and vendors a contract has to be made to clear out the chain of title, prevent ownership disputes and to make sure company fully owns the interface as only payment does not transfer title.

India’s challenge comes in structure: the Indian economy is interface-led but design law is still stuck in “articles”. So, rather than constructing an entirely new foundation for design law, a reform should be made clarifying a legal pathway for digital designs to reduce unnecessary doctrinal confusion  for UI/UX creators. Firstly, the Indian Design Law should clearly state that GUI and screen displays are legitimate design subject matter and should clarify that GUI comes under the definition of “article” under the Act which removes the confusion around tangibility. Secondly, the Indian Patent Office should share proper structured guidelines for GUI filings which includes how static interfaces, transitional sequences, and animated elements are to be depicted, as well as clear guidelines on disclaiming functional components.

Thirdly, policymakers could introduce a "digital design” track which will be a bolder move for them. It will preserve the core limits of design law but will remove the issues which arise whether the design exists or not. These reforms are practical as examination practices ends up escalating transaction costs, it slows enforcement of the said interfaces and ends up decreasing company’s valuation and loss in investor’s trust which is a big loss specifically for startups. If there is a practical approach and a clear registration track for the companies, it will strengthen monetisation strategies, efficient M&A processes, and discourage free-riding in digital interface markets. 

Conclusion

India’s design framework was only built for physical products and this framework is not suitable as per today’s economy as all the designs are interface driven. As per the act, a design exists under the definition of “article” and because of this definition, it does not support GUI protection and until law does not provide a clear and effective registration process, UI/UX creators cannot rely on a single IP law. There has to be a layered structure to protect UI/UX designs by combining it with copyright and trademark under Copyright Act and Trademark Act, generating a copyright assignment under the Copyright Act and enforcing it under Contract Act. If there would be legislative or administrative guidance for Digital Design filings, it would reduce disputes and it would better align with IP protection. 

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

References

Book

1. The Designs Act, 2000. Act No. 16 of 2000, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice.

2. The Copyright Act, 1957. Act No. 14 of 1957, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice.

3. The Trade Marks Act, 1999. Act No. 47 of 1999, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice.

4. The Indian Contract Act, 1872. Act No. 9 of 1872, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice.

Research Papers And Policy Reports

1. McKinsey & Company. The Business Value of Design. McKinsey Global Institute, 2018

2. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Analysis of the Returns to the Questionnaire on Graphical User Interface (GUI), Icon and Typeface/Type Font Designs, Document SCT/37/2 Rev.

3. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Joint Recommendation: Industrial Design Protection for Designs for Graphical User Interfaces, Document SCT/44/6 Rev.4, 4 April 2022.

Articles

1. IAM Magazine. “India’s Post-UST Global GUI Protection Landscape.” 15 November 2023.

2. Chambers & Partners. “GUI Design Protection in India: Implications of the Calcutta High Court’s UST Global Decision.” 5 March 2024.

3. Mirandah Asia. “UST Global v Controller of Patents and Designs: GUI Registrability in India.” 9 May 2023.

4. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Design Protection for Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). ICC Publication.

5. Forbes Technology Council. “The ROI of UX Design: Why Every $1 Invested Returns $100.” Forbes, 2023.

6. Straits Research. Graphical User Interface Market Forecast Report 2023–2031.

7. IIPRD. “Concept of Trade Dress in India.” IIPRD.

Cases

1. UST Global (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, AID No. 2 of 2019, Calcutta High Court, Judgment dated 20 March 2023.

2. Jayson Industries v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 3 July 2023.