Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are registrable designs under the Designs Act, 2000, despite their digital nature.

Several appellants (NEC Corp, ERBE Elektromedizin, Abiomed Inc, TVS Motor Co.) filed statutory appeals against orders passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their applications for Graphical User Interface (GUI) design registrations.

The Controller’s rejections were primarily based on the grounds that a GUI is not an "article" under Section 2(a), is not applied by an "industrial process" under Section 2(d), lacks permanence (as it is only visible when the device is "ON"), and that the Locarno Classification is merely for administrative assistance without statutory force in the absence of an amendment to the Act.

1. Whether a Graphical User Interface (GUI) satisfies the criteria of a "design" making it eligible for registration under the Designs Act, 2000?

2. Whether the term "article" under Section 2(a) and "industrial process" under Section 2(d) should be interpreted narrowly to exclude digital/virtual interfaces?

3. Whether the requirement of "permanence" or "touch" is a statutory prerequisite for design registration?

The Court interpreted Section 2(a) of the Designs Act, 2000, defining "article" as any article of manufacture or substance.

It applied Section 2(d) defining "design" as features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process which appeal to the eye.

The Court invoked the principle of "updating construction" to interpret statutes in light of technological advancements, relying on *State of Punjab vs. Amritsar Beverages Ltd.*

It further referenced *Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc.* regarding "article of manufacture."

It further referenced *Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs. Inox India Ltd.* regarding the interface between the Designs Act and Copyright Act.

The Court reasoned that the Controller’s interpretation was unduly narrow and failed to account for the broad, inclusive language of the Act.

It held that an "article" does not require a physical embodiment in the traditional sense; a GUI is applied to a display screen (the article) through a digital "industrial process," a term which must be construed liberally to include electronic rendering.

Applying the principle of "updating construction," the Court noted that "any" industrial process in Section 2(d) isn't limited to manual, mechanical, or chemical means but evolves with technology.

Regarding permanence, the Court found no statutory requirement for a design to be "permanently visible" or "tangible"; visibility during the article's normal and intended use (i.e., when the device is "ON") is sufficient.

The Court further clarified that GUI registration does not result in "dual protection" because once an artistic work is industrially applied to an article, it falls under the Design regime, distinct from its copyright as a computer program or literary work.

The Court answered that a GUI can be a "design" if it is identified with an article and meeting the criteria of Section 2(a) and 2(d).

The Court set aside all the impugned orders and remanded the applications to the Controller for fresh consideration on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that the design elements are not purely function-driven.

All appeals were allowed.