India's Draft Guidelines Set Out How Screen Interfaces and Icons Can Be Registered as Designs
For years, applicants trying to register a graphical user interface (GUI) as a design in India could not be sure what the office would do. Some GUI designs were registered and others were refused. India's IP office, the CGPDTM, has now released draft guidelines on registering GUI and icon designs under the 2000 Designs Act and its 2001 Rules. The draft was released on 1 October 2026 with a 30-day comment period, which closed on 31 October 2026; we found no notice of an extension. On 30 October SpicyIP published a close reading asking whether an animation can qualify as a design.
The trigger: NEC and the Calcutta High Court
The draft builds directly on a 9 March 2026 judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a group of appeals brought by NEC Corporation against refusals by the Controller. The court held that nothing in section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes GUIs as such. A GUI is made of icons, layout, colour and line composition, which are the kinds of visual features the Act protects, and those features appeal to the eye. The court also noted that the office had been inconsistent, having already registered several monitors and phones shown with GUIs. Pending legislative change, it said, GUIs can be registered case by case, provided they are linked to an article and are not dictated purely by function. The court sent the NEC applications back for fresh examination.
The draft states expressly that it works within the current Act. It does not anticipate the design law amendments floated in a DPIIT concept note of January 2026.
The main rules
An article is required. A GUI or icon on its own will not be registered. It must be shown applied to a display-enabled product such as a phone, tablet, monitor or wearable. Titles such as "GUI" or "Icon" alone are listed as unacceptable; "Mobile Phone with GUI" and "Smart Watch with GUI" appear as acceptable.
Screen-only visibility is fine. The fact that the interface appears only when the device is switched on, or is not physical to the touch, does not by itself count against registration. Displaying it through software is treated as application by an industrial process.
Classification under 14-04. Where the novelty lies only in the interface, the application may go into Locarno class 14-04, the class for screen displays and icons, even if the device belongs elsewhere. If the device itself is new, its own class applies, and if both are new the applicant may file two separate applications. Examiners would search class 14-04 for every GUI-type design in any case.
Drawing conventions. The claimed GUI is shown in solid lines, and broken lines may be used for the unclaimed device frame. Alternatively, the claimed part can be pinpointed. A statement of novelty must say exactly where the novelty lies, for example in the surface ornamentation of the phone's screen.
Animated designs, frame by frame. Dynamic or transitional GUIs are admissible, but each frame must be filed as a separate design. This is the point SpicyIP questions most. Its author, Harshita Bhola, argues that the creative work in an animation often sits in the movement between two ordinary screens, which frame-by-frame filing may fail to capture. She also notes that the draft does not say how many frames an applicant must file, which leaves cost estimates uncertain.
Registered GUI designs would receive the same rights and term as any other registered design.
What this means for applicants
For software and device companies, the draft brings much-needed predictability. Getting the title, class and representations right at filing will now count for more than arguing about registrability. Applicants should prepare views that show the interface on a specific device, separate what is claimed from what is disclaimed, and draft a precise novelty statement. For animated interfaces, the frame-by-frame approach may mean several applications and higher costs. Applicants should plan which frames truly carry the design.
An Indonesian angle
Indonesia's Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Designs defines a design by its shape, configuration or composition of lines or colours, in two or three dimensions, giving an aesthetic impression and capable of being applied to a product. That is close to the Indian definition. We are not aware of a published DGIP guideline or an Indonesian court decision dealing specifically with GUI or icon designs. Applicants seeking protection in Indonesia should follow the same discipline the Indian draft describes. Show the interface on a defined product, use clear drawings and identify the claimed features. Those steps help an application whatever approach the examiner takes.
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
