Kolkata: In a ruling that could reshape how digital designs are treated in India, the Calcutta High Court has held that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) — the visual layouts seen on screens of phones, medical devices and vehicle dashboards — are not automatically excluded from protection under the Designs Act.
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur criticised the patent office for adopting an unduly narrow and “hyper-technical” approach while rejecting such applications. He made it clear there is no blanket prohibition on registering GUIs as designs, and each case must be examined on its own merits.
The decision came while hearing a batch of appeals filed by companies including NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Abiomed Inc and TVS Motor Company. Their applications, involving screen displays and interface layouts, had been rejected by the Controller of Patents and Designs on the ground that GUIs are not physical or permanent features.
The Controller had argued that GUIs exist only when a device is switched on, cannot be touched, and are essentially software-based, making them ineligible for registration.
Rejecting this, the court held that the law does not require a design to be permanently visible or physically embedded. A design visible during normal use — such as a screen interface — can still qualify for protection.
The court also emphasised that terms like “article” and “industrial process” must be interpreted broadly in light of technological advancements, noting that displaying a GUI through software and electronic systems falls within modern industrial processes.
On functionality, the court clarified that while GUIs serve practical purposes, they also involve aesthetic choices such as layout, colour and visual arrangement. These elements, if not purely dictated by function, are capable of protection as designs. Addressing concerns over overlap with copyright law, the court said the statutory framework already prevents impermissible dual protection. Once visual features are applied industrially, they may qualify as a design distinct from an artistic work.
Noting inconsistencies in the patent office’s approach, the court pointed out that some GUI-based designs had been granted registration while others were rejected on similar grounds. Setting aside the earlier orders, the High Court directed the Controller to reconsider all applications afresh, after giving applicants an opportunity of hearing and applying the correct legal tests.