GUI and icon designs: What the CGPDTM’s Draft Guidelines take from NEC Corporation

In January 2026, DPIIT published a Concept Note on a proposed amendment to the Designs Act, 2000 (“the Concept Note”). Noting that “modern designs exist entirely or partly in virtual form," it proposes amendments to protect virtual designs and “align Indian design law with international best practices." In March 2026, the Calcutta High Court held in NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr that GUIs are not excluded from registration under the existing Act, while noting a lack of clarity in the Designs Office and calling for clarificatory guidance “either by Legislature or by the Controller." The Office of the CGPDTM has now released its Draft Guidelines for Registration of Designs relating to GUI and Icon etc. (“the Guidelines”), framed having regard to that judgment. The Guidelines bridge the gap under the existing law until the proposed amendments are given statutory footing. This article reads them against the judgment and the Concept Note.

Five appeals under the Designs Act, 2000 challenged refusals of GUI design applications. The Court held that “industrial process” is not confined to manual, mechanical or chemical processes; that the design and the article are distinct; and that permanence and touch are not statutory requirements. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded. The Court did not direct registration, but observed that nothing prevents GUIs from being registrable on a case-by-case basis when properly identified with an article and when the design elements are not purely function-driven.

I. Status of the Guidelines

The Guidelines are a draft, describing itself as “directory in nature and intended for procedural guidance”, stating that it does not “create, enlarge, restrict or otherwise modify the scope of registrability or protection” available under the Act, which would prevail in case of any inconsistency. They also state that they are not based on any proposed amendment or on the Concept Note dated 23-01-2026.

II. What the Guidelines require

Clause 4 of the Guidelines sets out four criteria, expressly described as non-exhaustive:

Article (clause 4.1): the GUI or icon must be applied to an article such as a mobile phone, tablet, monitor or wearable device. This reflects the Court's statement that the statutory intent is to prevent a design being registered in the abstract (para 14).

Visibility (clause 4.2): the GUI must be visually perceptible during normal use, and visibility only when the device is powered on, or a non-permanent or non-tactile character, does not by itself count against registrability (paras 14 and 15).

Industrial process (clause 4.3): generation and display by electronic means and execution of software “shall be considered sufficient”.

Novelty (clause 4.4): the GUI must be new or original, not previously disclosed, and not scandalous or obscene under Section 4.

Classification and title: The Court held that the Locarno Classification is “suggestive or indicative” and “solely of an administrative character”: it may assist in filing and search, while registrability still depends on Sections 2(a) and 2(d) (para 18). The Guidelines use it in that way. Where the novelty resides only in the interface, the application may be classified under Class 14-04, even where the interface is shown on an article belonging to another class; where it resides primarily in the article, in the article's class; and where both have independent novelty, separate applications may be filed (clause 5.1.2). The title must name the article: “Mobile Phone with GUI” is allowable, while “GUI” or “Icon” alone is not (clauses 5.1.4 and 5.2).

Representations and novelty: The GUI is drawn in solid lines and parts not claimed, such as the device frame, may be drawn in broken lines; alternatively, the whole representation is in solid lines and the GUI is pin-pointed (clause 5.3.1). The Court had noted this dotted and dashed line practice in the Controller's Manual (para 26). The model Statements of Novelty claim “surface ornamentation”, “surface pattern” or “shape configuration” (clause 5.6), tracking the features listed in Section 2(d). A dynamic or animated GUI is admissible only if each frame is filed as a separate design (clause 6).

III. Analysis:

Industrial process: The Court said only that “there are strong reasons to contend” that displaying a GUI fulfils the definition of industrial process (para 13). Clause 4.3 turns this into a categorical rule of sufficiency. Read with the Court's finding that a GUI “is not itself a computer program” (para 20), the clause is best read as addressing how a GUI is displayed rather than claimed. Thus, a case-to-case examination remains the standard.

The cross-device problem: The same interface often runs on a phone, a tablet, a monitor, a vehicle dashboard and a wearable, and stakeholders have raised concern that linking a GUI to a single article may restrict protection. The Court recognised that the relevant article for a GUI “can vary from case to case” (para 9). The Guidelines do not say whether a registration for “Mobile Phone with GUI” extends to the same interface on a tablet or a watch.

Moving interfaces: The frame-by-frame rule may not suit an interface whose character lies in the transition between frames. The Court had noted that the European definition covers “animation, movement, transition” (para 26).

Copyright and functionality: The Court left the copyright boundary to case to case examination, with reference to Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd, 2025 SCC Online SC 780, and held that a design is unregistrable “only if its appearance is solely dictated by function with no room for eye appeal." The Guidelines reproduce Section 2(d) (clause 2.2) and list non-functionality as an examination point and objection ground (clauses 7 and 8), but give no criteria on either.

IV. The proposed amendments

The Concept Note presents its proposals “in broad outline” for stakeholder consultation, “to be fleshed out further." The consultation has closed, and the inputs are expected to inform a formal amendment Bill, which will require Cabinet approval before introduction in Parliament.

Article: The definition of “article” “may be revised to expressly cover items in physical or non-physical form, including GUIs, icons, graphic symbols, typefaces, augmented reality graphical user interfaces, and other virtual products provided under Locarno classification”, so that virtual designs are protected “independent of any physical carrier” (section 1, page 5).

If enacted in this form, the article requirement and titles such as “Mobile Phone with GUI” (clauses 4.1, 5.1.1 and 5.1.4) would lose their statutory basis, the cross-device problem would largely fall away, and a device frame in broken lines need no longer be a precondition to registration, though the Concept Note does not address representations expressly.

Design and industrial process: The definition of “design” may be expanded by broadening “the scope as well as meaning” of industrial process and by expressly including animation, movement and transition (section 1).

This would codify the Court's reading of industrial process and bear directly on the frame-by-frame rule. The Court's holding that permanence is not required is unaffected.

Copyright: The proposed amendment would allow copyright protection (up to 15 years) for designs that are registrable under the Designs Act, 2000 but remain unregistered. This would directly impact large scale manufacturers.

International alignment: The Concept Note proposes accession to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), whose Final Act India signed in 2024, and to the Hague Agreement, Geneva Act of 1999. The Court had referred to both treaties, “both of which recognize virtual designs”. The Concept Note also proposes a full grace period of 12 months, consistent with Article 7 of the DLT, “without any pre-conditions, and regardless of the manner of disclosure”, in place of the six-month exhibition grace period under Section 21. App interfaces could then be launched and tested in the market before filing without loss of novelty. The Concept Note also addresses other options such as deferring publication of design for up-to 30 months so that applicants can keep the design confidential till launch; multiple designs can be filed in a single application, along with introduction of a divisional application to ensure the entire application is not jeopardized in case of objections to a single design; statutory damages are introduced for infringement and the term of protection is split in three 5 year periods (including renewal) to align with the Hague Agreement.

Registered GUI and icon designs are to enjoy the same scope of protection, rights and term as other designs (clause 9).

The Guidelines turn the NEC ruling into a working checklist, and refusals on grounds the Court rejected, such as lack of permanence or a narrow reading of industrial process, will be difficult to sustain.

The Concept Note points to the next step: a statutory framework, in line with international practice, that protects virtual designs without tying them to hardware.

Until then, clauses 4.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.4 and 6 merit close attention in the final text.

About the authors: Christine Chiramel is a Partner and Prachi Garg is a Trainee Associate at Chiramel and Co. Solicitors and Advocates.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.