The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, published a concept note in January 2026 outlining the proposed amendments to the Design Act, 2000. With the progress of innovation and technology, the scope of protection now extends beyond physical form to virtual and immersive designs, which are not covered under the current Act. Accordingly, the DPIIT has proposed amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. These proposed amendments introduce key changes aimed at extending protection to virtual designs and aligning the Indian design regime with international treaties.

The first key feature for consideration is to “extend design protection to virtual designs by making material changes to the definition of ‘article’ and ‘design’.” With rapid advancements in technology, Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) have become integral across various sectors. The current Designs Act, 2000, focuses on tangible articles and their visual features, inadvertently excluding virtual designs like GUIs. The proposed amendments address this gap by revising the definitions of “article” and “design” to explicitly include such elements. This would allow protection of the digital aesthetics of a product while satisfying the inherent requirements of design protection.

Interestingly, the DPIIT published the concept note at the right time, as the Calcutta High Court in the case of NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, on 9 March 2026, held that a GUI essentially comprises of layout, icons, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, which fall within the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. The matter arose from the statutory appeals filed by different Appellants, including NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GmBH, Abiomed Inc., and TVS Motor Company Limited, and the question before the Hon’ble Court was “Whether Graphic User Interface (GUI) satisfies the criteria of a design making it eligible for registration under the Act?”

The present judgment further strengthens the order passed in UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. the Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr[1], wherein it was held that the in-built GUIs are capable of design registration under the Act. Before the UST Global ruling, the Designs Office rejected GUI applications by interpreting that GUIs were not an “article” as per Section 2(a) of the Act and that they served a functional purpose rather than appealing solely in the aesthetic sense under Section 2(d). The said rejection orders were also based on the interpretation that GUIs are not “applied by any industrial means or process” and hence do not fall within the definition of “design”.

In NEC Corporation, the Court acknowledged that GUIs are a critical asset in modern day technology, commerce and digital services and clarified that “article” under Section 2(a) covers any manufactured item, substance or separable part capable of being sold independently, including the display screen of a phone, tablet, etc. This clarification rejected the previous claims that the GUIs lacked any independent existence. The Court also took note of the fact that Section 2(d) requires that a design be applied to an article by an industrial process and that the design itself need not be an article; they are distinct. For GUIs, the relevant “article” could be a display screen, the hardware component, or the finished product, like a mobile phone or dashboard. The Design Office’s narrow interpretation that only physical, tangible embodiments can be “articles” was criticized as this approach excludes GUIs, icons, and screen-based designs simply because they exist in digital form. It was also stressed that the decisive test for an article to be a design under the said section is a visual appeal “judged solely by the eye” in its finished state. Furthermore, the single-bench also noted that no permanence or constant visibility is required; that is, even if the product comprising the GUI design is in off mode, the aesthetic appeal will persist. The Court also observed that protecting a GUI does not guarantee dual protection, as the legal character of a GUI when applied industrially to an article differs from that of an artistic work or a computer programme, which are protected under copyright.

It concluded that: “25. The Act protects shape, configuration, pattern, ornament and composition of lines or colours. A GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, and therefore falls within the kind of visual features the Act contemplates. GUIs typically reflect creative choices in arrangement, proportion, spacing, colour palette and icon design. These choices are aesthetic decisions that produce a visual impression capable of being judged by the eye and therefore meet the qualitative requirements for design protection. In summary, there is no per se exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d) of the Act. In view of the above, the contention of the Controller that there is no explicit provision under the Act entailing protection of GUI within the scope of Section 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act is incorrect and legally untenable.”[2]

The Court held that all the impugned orders passed by the Design Office against the Appellants be set aside and the applications be remanded for rehearing.

The NEC judgement is a significant ruling as it gives a fresh judicial perspective to the definition of a “Design” under the Designs Act. The judgment acknowledges that IP laws must evolve with innovation, and their interpretation should be flexible enough to cover emerging digital realities. It also paves the way for India to align with international practices rather than lagging behind. The fact that the judgment mirrors the proposed amendment in the DPIIT’s concept note indicates that both the judiciary and the executive policy framework are on a similar path in addressing the underlying concerns. The policy proposal is under discussion with stakeholders and we must now wait for the legislature to carry the process forward and give statutory effect to the suggested amendments.

Written By
Shwetha S Mohan