Designs Act Reforms and the Future of GUI Protection in India
Introduction : If you open up any banking app, a designer will have made numerous visual decisions along the way for example, where the icons are placed, what the transition effects look like, and how the colour scheme directs the viewer's attention. Just as carefully as one would shape the curve of a car's dashboard, these design choices were made, yet Indian law dealt with them in a different way. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 only covered physical "articles", which left graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in a legal grey area for more than twenty years. On 9th March 2026, the Calcutta High Court ruled in appeals brought by NEC Corporation, TVS Motor, Abiomed and Erbe Elektromedizin that GUIs are not automatically excluded from the scope of design protection and that the DPIIT should propose an amendment to the Act in order to include virtual creations, GUIs, icons, animations and AR/VR interfaces.
Since Indian tech, fintech and gaming startups are now competing for users, product design is just as important as hardware. Depending on copyright or patent laws to protect digital screen frameworks, which were never intended to cover app interfaces, has been an awkward solution and that is now coming to an end. Good news is that this awkward workaround is finally being discontinued. Thanks to recent court rulings and proposed changes to Indian law, software design is now receiving the recognition it deserves. This blog looks at what the new DPIIT rules mean, which screen elements you can actually register, what evidence you need to pass the examination, how design rights fit in with other IP options, and provides a step-by-step guide to filing your own GUI design application in India.
Legal Provisions
The legal basis for design protection in India is first established by the definitions of "article" in Section 2(a) and "design" in Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. In the past, registration has been contingent upon a design being applied to a tangible article, which has caused problems in the case of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that are part of a digital environment. According to Section 4, a design must be new or original and will not be registered if it has been made public before the date of filing.[3] Section 5(4) grants the right to appeal to the High Court against a refusal by the Controller, as was the case in the NEC Corporation case before the Calcutta High Court.
The Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 have introduced sub-classes 14-04 and 32-00 under the Locarno Classification to include GUIs, icons and screen displays. However, the definitions in Sections 2(a) and 2(d) have not been altered, leaving a gap that the DPIIT’s Concept Note is now attempting to fill. Lastly, Section 11 covers the duration of copyright in a registered design, and India's possible accession to the Hague Agreement might enable applicants to secure design protection in several countries by means of a single international application.
Legal analysis
The Concept Note put out by the DPIIT on 23 January 2026 suggests that design protection should be extended to virtual designs by altering the definitions of both “article” and “design” so that it is no longer restricted to physical products. This appears to be a necessary move since digital elements such as layouts, icons, colours and animations have now become important in helping to distinguish one product from another. There has been a significant increase in the number of design applications filed in India, with approximately 12,160 filings recorded in 2024, representing an increase of over 43% compared to the previous year. At the same time, the reform does give rise to some concerns. The International Trademark Association and various other parties have emphasised the importance of having a clear definition of “article”, since if the definition is too broad it might result in design protection extending to functional software features rather than just to visual aspects.
A further concern is the proposal to grant a 15-year copyright term for works which are registrable but not yet registered, as this could diminish the motivation to formally register designs and make it harder to prove ownership and the date of creation. Likewise, the suggested 12-month disclosure grace period might be of help to startups that need to demonstrate their products before filing an application, but it could also lead to disputes in cases where third parties independently develop similar designs during that period. Although the proposed changes represent a positive development in bringing Indian design law into line with digital products and with international systems such as the Hague Agreement, their eventual success will depend on clearly establishing the line between visual features that are protectable and those that are not protectable as functional elements.
Case laws
The decision in NEC Corporation v The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. (Calcutta High Court, judgment delivered on 9 March 2026) represents the most important ruling to date concerning the registrability of GUIs. A number of appeals have been brought challenging the Designs Office's long-standing practice of dismissing applications for GUI designs on the basis that a GUI is not a physical "article", is not permanent, and is in fact a functional aspect of software rather than a visual design.
The Court disagreed with this approach and stated that a registrable design involves visual features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or the composition of lines or colours applied to an article and is assessed entirely by the eye; it further held that GUI elements including layout, iconography, colour combination and ornamentation meet this qualitative criterion under Section 2(d) if the GUI is visibly associated with an article, for example a display screen or a handheld device, in its activated state.
The judgment is also noteworthy for two further reasons. In the first place, it clearly stated that there is no statutory exemption for GUIs under Sections 2(a) or 2(d), and that arguments based on the non-physical nature or on functionality are unsustainable in cases where the GUI in fact has aesthetic features properly associated with an article. Second, the case was sent back to the Designs Office with instructions that GUI applications should be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than being rejected on formulaic grounds such as "not an article" or "no industrial process".
The Court also pointed out that there is a lack of clear internal guidance within the Designs Office regarding the practice of examining GUIs, and that in Indian practice there is a limited tradition of using only a single dotted-line style to indicate unclaimed matter, unlike some foreign design offices which use different line conventions for various purposes. The NEC Corporation case is based upon a previous, less convincing effort to deal with the same issue. In the case regarding UST Global's touch-screen GUI application, the Calcutta High Court had earlier sent the matter back to the Controller, only for the Designs Office to reject the application once again on the same grounds of non-physicality and functionality, a situation which the 2026 ruling seems to have ended by directly considering and dismissing those objections on their merits.
With regard to evidence, the case of Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v Controller of Patents & Designs (Calcutta High Court, May 2024) is still relevant when it comes to disputes over novelty: the Court stated that simply displaying a design on an overseas website that has not been verified does not, by itself, constitute prior publication under section 4(b). This case shows that the evidence required to overcome a claim of novelty is not automatically satisfied merely by having an online presence, a point which will be especially important in cases involving GUIs since interface designs easily spread on demo sites, portfolios and app-store listings before an application is filed.
Practical implications
GUI applications can now be submitted: After the NEC Corporation decision, applicants are not obliged to wait for amendments to the Designs Act. The Designs Office must examine GUI applications on their merits.
Businesses developing fintech apps, SaaS platforms and AR/VR products should regard GUI elements as intellectual property assets: in particular they should treat distinctive layouts, icons and animations as valuable intellectual property.
Benefits for startups: The 12-month grace period suggested could be of some help to startups which need to show off their products before making an application. That said, it is still best to file promptly since the novelty requirement in Section 4 remains.
There is a need for examiner training: As the Designs Office is likely to have more GUI applications, it will therefore require improved training and more clear guidelines when examining them.
International protection: Once India becomes a party to the Hague Agreement, Indian software businesses would be able to secure design protection in a number of countries more easily and at a lower cost.
Use a variety of intellectual property protections: As GUI elements can also be protected by copyright and trademark laws, companies should consider employing multiple types of intellectual property protection rather than depending on just one.
Suggested design filing framework for GUI assets
GUI applications can now be submitted: after the NEC Corporation decision, applicants are not obliged to wait for amendments to the Designs Act. The Designs Office must examine GUI applications on their merits.
Businesses developing fintech applications, SaaS platforms and AR/VR products should regard GUI elements as intellectual property assets: in particular they should treat distinctive layouts, icons and animations as valuable intellectual property.
Benefits for startups: A 12-month grace period suggested may be of some help to startups which need to show off their products before making an application. That said, it is still advisable to file promptly since the novelty requirement in Section 4 remains.
There is a need for examiner training: as the Designs Office is likely to have more GUI applications, it will therefore require improved training and more clear guidelines when examining them.
Regarding international protection: if India becomes a party to the Hague Agreement, Indian software businesses would be able to secure design protection in a number of countries more easily and at a lower cost.
Use a variety of intellectual property protections: Since GUI elements can also be safeguarded by copyright and trademarks, businesses should consider employing different kinds of intellectual property protection rather than depending on just one.
Conclusion
The current design laws in India are now aligning with a situation which product and design teams have been working with for a while, namely that the visual appearance of software can be just as commercially important as the physical design of the hardware it operates on. Two events in 2026 the DPIIT's Concept Note and the Calcutta High Court's decision in the NEC Corporation case show the same trend, although they come from different institutional channels, and this parallel development poses a real risk of inconsistency until the official statutory text is completed.
The courts have already given an interpretative ruling under the present Act; it is now up to the legislature to provide clear definitions, especially when it comes to distinguishing between protectable ornamentation and unprotectable function, because if it fails to do so the reform might either fail to offer adequate protection for real digital design innovations or wrongly extend design rights into areas that should be the domain of patent law. Until the amendments are passed, applicants should at this stage establish well-structured filing practices based on solid evidence in order to be in a good position to benefit fully from the new system when it comes into effect.
Author: Shailey 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
The Designs Act, 2000, No. 16 of 2000, India Code (2000)
The Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (introducing Locarno sub-classes 14-04 and 32-00).
Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs (1968, as amended)
NEC Corporation v The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1652 (Cal HC, 9 March 2026).
Calcutta HC Allows Registration of Graphics on Display Screens under the Designs Act; Flags Lack of Clarity in Designs Office on GUI Registrability', SCC Online Blog (19 Mar 2026) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/03/19/graphics-on-display-devices-protected-as-design-calcutta-hc/ accessed 7 August 2026.
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Concept Note on Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 (23 January 2026).
'Design Law 2.0: Modernising Design Protection in India', Lexology (23 Feb 2026) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3f9c466b-999b-493a-b131-1c44d83a6194 accessed 7 August 2026.
'DPIIT Proposes Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000: Key Reforms', SCC Online Blog (3 Feb 2026) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/02/03/dpiit-proposed-amendments-to-design-act-2000-explained/ accessed 7 August 2026.
International Trademark Association, Comments on the Concept Note Dated 23 January 2026 on Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 (Feb 2026) https://www.inta.org/wp-content/uploads/public-files/advocacy/testimony-submissions/INTA-Comments-Design-Law-Revisions-India_February-2026-1.pdf accessed 7 August 2026.
Comments