Indian Design Laws: A restrict stance to graphic user interface protection

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Synopsis

India’s restrictive stance on GUI design protection under design laws sparks debate as global trends increasingly recognize GUIs’ aesthetic and commercial value.

Key takeaways

• Indian courts are yet to protect GUI fully designs under design laws, leaving applicants with significant legal hurdles.
• Despite their rising importance, Indian authorities deem GUIs integral to software and lack the “consistent eye appeal” needed for design registration.
• Global protections for digital designs grow, but India’s design law remains limited, offering alternative protections through copyright and trademark laws instead.

In India, a graphic user interface (GUI) is a user-friendly interface that enables interaction with devices through icons, menus, and other visual elements. 

However, despite their role in defining user experiences and influencing customer choices, GUIs face significant legal challenges in India’s design law landscape.

Registrability of GUIs under Indian Design Laws

Initially, GUIs were registrable under Indian design laws, with notable registrations from companies like Microsoft. 

This trajectory changed when Amazon’s GUI application (No. 240305) for a digital display was rejected by the Indian Patent Office, marking a crucial shift. 

This rejection raised significant questions about interpreting the Designs Act 2000 and its applicability to digital designs. The primary question was whether GUIs qualified as “articles” under the Designs Act 2000.

Read Headline: Meta Quest v71 Brings Design Refresh: Is It Worth The Hype?  

Recent developments

In 2019, UST Global’s GUI “Touch Screen” design application faced rejection. 

The Controller stated that GUIs lack “consistent eye appeal” since they are only visible when a device is powered on, which disqualifies them as independent articles. 

This reasoning also pointed to Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act, reinforcing the view that GUIs do not meet design law criteria.

In a significant development, Justice Ravi Krishnan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court ordered a reconsideration of a similar GUI rejection in March 2023. This decision raised hopes for more inclusive protections and could set a precedent for future cases. 

However, the Patent Office maintained its restrictive stance, denying the GUI registration again.

Controller’s rationale: Points of rejection

• Non-physical nature: Virtual interfaces GUIs cannot be sold independently and thus do not meet the “article” criteria.
• Visibility limitations: GUIs lack “consistent eye appeal” as they are visible only when a device is on, leading to doubts about their standalone design value.
• Classifications: While Locarno classifications and global trends favor GUI registration, Indian laws remain strict on GUIs as qualifying “articles.”

Global comparison and current alternatives for GUI protection

India’s strict interpretation contrasts sharply with growing international support for GUI registration. 

Countries like the U.S., EU, and Japan offer GUI protections, recognizing the commercial and aesthetic value GUIs add to products. 

In India, though, GUIs find limited recourse through copyright and trademark laws as “artistic works,” although design law protections remain constrained.

As technology evolves, so does the need for legal frameworks to adapt to digital innovations. 

The struggle for GUI protection under Indian design laws underscores an urgent and crucial need for reform that aligns with global standards and promotes digital aesthetics and user experience innovation.

Source: Bar and Bench