In a ruling that could reshape how digital creativity is protected in India, the Calcutta High Court has declared that icons, menus and screen layouts appearing on phones, computers and other devices can qualify as registrable designs under the Designs Act, 2000.
The decision came in a series of appeals involving companies such as NEC Corporation, Abiomed Inc and TVS Motor Company, which had sought design protection for visual elements like dashboard pictograms and digital display layouts. Their applications had earlier been rejected by the Controller of Patents and Designs, which argued that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were merely software-based features rather than designs applied to a tangible article.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur disagreed with that interpretation and struck down several of those refusals. The judgment emphasised that the law protects visual attributes such as shape, configuration, ornamentation, patterns and colour combinations—features that are intrinsic to graphical interfaces.
According to the Court, a GUI is built from deliberate aesthetic decisions: icon shapes, layout arrangements, spacing, colour palettes and visual composition. These elements, the ruling noted, fit squarely within the type of visual characteristics the statute was designed to safeguard.
The earlier stance taken by the Controller’s office was criticised for treating “articles of manufacture” as something that must always exist in a strictly physical form. The Court described this as a narrow reading of the statute, one that fails to recognise how modern technology blends digital and physical processes.
Under Section 2(a) of the law, the expression “article of manufacture” was interpreted as broad and flexible. Limiting it to purely tangible objects, the Court said, would automatically exclude digital interfaces, animations and screen-based designs—an approach that does not reflect present-day technological realities.
The Court also dismissed the argument that a design must have a permanent visual presence. Instead, it clarified that the correct test is whether the design becomes visible when the product is used in its normal manner. If a screen layout or icon appears during ordinary operation of a device, it may satisfy this requirement.
On the question of functionality, the ruling drew an important line. While many GUIs perform practical tasks, they may still qualify for protection if they carry aesthetic appeal that goes beyond pure function.
The Court further addressed concerns about overlap with copyright protection, stating that a GUI applied industrially to a device takes on a different legal character than a standalone artistic work or software code.
Notably, the judgment observed that most jurisdictions worldwide already recognise design protection for graphical interfaces. Interpreting the statute in a technologically updated manner, the Court said, helps bring Indian law closer to global practice.
With these findings, the Court set aside the earlier rejection orders and sent the applications back to the Controller for fresh consideration. The ruling signals a significant shift, recognising that in the digital age, creativity is often displayed not on physical surfaces—but on the screens we interact with every day.
