Summary
The Calcutta High Court, in five consolidated appeals, held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not per se excluded from design registration under the Designs Act, 2000. The appellants NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Abiomed Inc, and TVS Motor Company Limited challenged a series of Controller rejections resting on narrow readings of "article" and "industrial process" and an unsupported permanence criterion. The ruling clarified that GUI applications must be assessed case by case and all five applications were remanded for fresh consideration. The Court also issued a call for formal regulatory guidance on GUI, icon, and animation protection in India.
The Calcutta High Court recently held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not categorically excluded from registration as designs under the Designs Act, 2000. In a ruling involving five consolidated appeals filed by NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Abiomed Inc, and TVS Motor Company Limited, the Court set aside a series of rejection orders passed by the Controller and found that the Controller’s approach was rooted in several legal misconceptions. The ruling does not grant automatic protection to all GUIs but firmly establishes that each application must be assessed on its own facts under sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act.
Background
Despite the Design (Amendment) Rules, 2021 introducing GUIs as a registrable Locarno category (Class 14-04: Screen Displays and Icons), the Controller’s continued to reject GUI applications on multiple grounds: that a GUI was not an “article” under section 2(a); that displaying a GUI does not constitute an “industrial process” under section 2(d); that GUIs lack permanence since they disappear when a device was switched off; and that it cannot be judged solely by the eye as a “finished article”.
Five separate appeals before the Calcutta High Court raised the same core question. NEC Corporation (NEC) had applied for a design for the shape and pattern of a display screen with a GUI, which was rejected in October 2019. ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH (ERBE) sought registration of the display screen for an Electrosurgical High Frequency Generator, which was rejected in September 2019. Abiomed Inc filed two applications for a Display Panel with GUI for a vehicle dashboard, both rejected in February 2025. TVS Motor Company Limited (TVS) filed an application for a GUI design for a vehicle dashboard display, rejected in May 2024 without any reasons being stated. Given the common legal questions raised, all five appeals were heard together.
Issues Before the Court
-
- Whether a GUI satisfies the definition of “article” under section 2(a) of the Designs Act, 2000.
- Whether the process of applying a GUI to a display surface constitutes an “industrial process” within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Act.
- Whether the requirement of permanence i.e., that a design be visible at all times, is a valid criterion for registrability under section 2(d).
- Whether a GUI, as a finished article, be “judged solely by the eye” as required by Section 2(d).
- Whether registering a GUI as a design would create impermissible dual protection under the Designs Act and the Copyright Act, 1957.
-
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants (NEC, ERBE, Abiomed, and TVS):
The Appellants presented a unified set of contentions. It was submitted that the Controllers were operating under a misconceived position that GUIs are per se not registrable, and had adopted an unduly strict and narrow interpretation of both “article” under section 2(a) and “design” under section 2(d). The Appellants submitted that there is no requirement in section 2(d) that a design be permanently visible, and the statute does not use the word “permanent.” It was argued that the impugned orders had wrongly read in a criterion of permanence that the legislature never intended. The Appellants further submitted that the Controller had confused the functional aspect of a GUI with its ornamental aspect and argued that the design was unregistrable only when the appearance was entirely dictated by function. The Appellants also submitted that the inclusion of GUIs in the Locarno Classification under the Design (Amendment) Rules, 2021, reflects a clear legislative and administrative intent to open the door to GUI design registration, and the blanket refusal to consider foreign decisions from the US, UK and elsewhere was erroneous.
Arguments of the Controller
The Controller held that a GUI was not sold or manufactured separately and had no independent existence from the electronic device. Therefore, it cannot constitute an “article” under section 2(a). The Controller submitted that the process of displaying a GUI was neither manual, mechanical, nor chemical and therefore falls outside the statutory definition of an “industrial process.” Further, the Controller contended that the GUIs are protected as “artistic works” under the Copyright Act, 1957 and hence granting them registration as designs would create impermissible dual protection under two distinct IP regimes. It was asserted that a GUI was visible only when a device was switched on and ceases to exist when the device was turned off, and this absence of permanence means it cannot constitute a registrable design.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
On the definition of “Article” and “Industrial Process”:
The Court held that the term “article” under section 2(a) must receive a broad, liberal, and purposive interpretation. The provision defines an article as “any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, or partly artificial and partly natural”. The Court found that the Controller had committed a fundamental error by insisting that every article must have a physical or tangible embodiment. Citing the US Supreme Court’s reasoning in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc., the Court noted that the expression “article” broadly covers a thing made by hand or machine. Further, the US Court of Appeals in Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Corp. had extended this to hold that even software is an “article of manufacture.” The Court concluded that the relevant article for a GUI can vary case to case and that it could be the display screen, the hardware component, or the finished consumer product such as a phone, tablet, or automobile dashboard. On the definition of ‘Industrial Process’, the Court held that the words “manual, mechanical or chemical” are not exhaustive of what constitutes an industrial process and that they are merely illustrative examples.
On Permanence and Eye Appeal:
The Court rejected the permanence requirement as having no statutory basis. Relying on the US case In Re: Hruby, the Court observed that many designs depend on external conditions to manifest their appearance, and this dependency does not undermine their eligibility for protection. Similarly, the Court cited the English decision in K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application, where a watch display visible only when activated was held to be registrable. The Court held that the correct legal test was whether the design was visible when the article was put to its intended or normal use. On eye appeal, the Court held the Controller had fundamentally confused a GUI’s function with its ornament. The Court also noted that the Manual of Designs Practice and Procedure recognises a “noticeability” test under which internal features visible only during use are registered as designs.
On Dual Protection with Copyright:
The Court dismissed the dual protection concern by pointing to the statutory mechanism that resolves it. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes artistic work from registration, while section 15 of the Copyright Act provides that copyright protection ceases once a design derived from an artistic work has been industrially applied to an article more than 50 times. The Court also clarified that a GUI was not a computer program and that it was a visual configuration displayed on an article. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent analysis in Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. (2025), the Court affirmed a two-pronged test: first, determine whether the work was a pure artistic work or a derived design; second, if it does not qualify for copyright protection, apply the functional utility test to determine whether it qualifies for design protection
On Locarno Classification and Foreign Precedents:
The Court held that the Locarno Classification, while administrative in character and not capable of creating or denying rights automatically, is nonetheless highly indicative of legislative intent. India’s deliberate adoption of the Locarno Agreement and the 2021 Rules amendment reflects a clear administrative and legislative purpose to recognise GUIs as protectable industrial designs. The blanket rejection of foreign decisions was also held to be erroneous. The Court reaffirmed that decisions from the US, UK, and other jurisdictions on pari materia provisions are of high persuasive value in Indian courts, a position settled by the Supreme Court. A WIPO survey finding that 92% of jurisdictions protect GUIs under design law further supported the Court’s conclusion that India’s approach should align with international standards.
Conclusion
The Court allowed all five appeals and set aside the impugned orders. The key holdings are:
-
- There was no per se exclusion for GUIs under sections 2(a) or 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. The Controller’s position to the contrary is incorrect and legally untenable.
- The terms “article” and “industrial process” in the Act must receive a broad, liberal, and purposive interpretation, consistent with the principles of updating construction and technological neutrality
- Permanence of visibility was not a criterion for registrability. The correct test was whether the design was visible during the article’s normal or intended use.
- A GUI’s functional operation must not be confused with its ornamental appearance. Registrability depends on whether aesthetic choices exist in the visual design and not on whether the GUI also serves a function.
- All five matters were remanded to the Controller for fresh hearing, with an opportunity to be heard, in light of the Court’s legal findings.
- The Court called upon the Legislature or Controller to issue clarificatory guidance formally recognising GUIs, icons, animations, and screen-based designs as protectable subject matter.
Case Citation: NEC Corporation & Ors. vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors., IPDAID/21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025, IPDAID/3/2025 | High Court at Calcutta (IPR Division) | Judgment dated 09 March 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:70
Article review and accessibility review: Gaurav Mishra