NEC Corporation & Ors. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Designs Act, 2000

Section 2(a)Section 2(d)

Designs Rules, 2001

Rule 10

Provisions considered: Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, and Rule 10 of the Designs Rules, 2001.

Brief facts

Several corporations filed statutory appeals challenging orders of the Controller of Patents and Designs refusing registration of their graphical user interface designs for display screens, medical equipment, vehicle dashboards and mobile interfaces. The Controller had held that a graphical user interface is not an article under Section 2(a), is not applied by an industrial process, and lacks permanence. An amicus curiae was appointed given the recurring importance of the issue.

Issues before the Court

1. Does a graphical user interface satisfy the definition of article under Section 2(a) of the Designs Act, 2000?
2. Can such an interface be applied to an article by an industrial process so as to qualify as a registrable design under Section 2(d)?
3. Does the absence of permanent visibility disqualify it from design protection?

Court's findings

The Court held that the definitions of article and design under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) must be construed liberally and purposively, applying the principle of updating construction to account for technological change. It observed that a graphical user interface inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes and composition of lines, which are the very features Section 2(d) contemplates, and that the Controller's reliance on physical embodiment and permanence read requirements into the statute that Parliament never enacted.

The Court found that the process of displaying such an interface on a screen through electronic signalling amounts to an industrial process within the broad and inclusive language of Section 2(a), and that dependence of a design's visibility on the article being switched on does not disqualify it.

The Court held that a graphical user interface is not a computer programme or artistic work as such, and that the statutory scheme, including Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, already guards against dual protection, so no blanket exclusion is warranted; registrability must be assessed case by case.

Decision

Appeals allowed; the Controller's orders refusing registration of graphical user interface designs were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration.

Cases cited

• Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 INSC 483

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

Copyright Design Overlap Design Registration Digital Platforms Novelty Scope Of Design Protection