含羞草社区

What do XEROX Parc, the Apple Macintosh and Windows 3.0 have in common? Trivia enthusiasts would recognise that these were all key to the evolution of the graphical user interface (GUI), which fundamentally altered how we engage with technology.

For years, in India at least, GUIs were not considered designs under law, and thus not protectable as an intellectual property right (IPR). But this position stands to be reversed soon.

Modernising India designs: GUIs, virtuals, treaty

In its “Concept Note” detailing amendments to the Indian Designs Act, 2000, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) proposes a host of changes, most notably, expanding the scope of design protection to GUIs, but also including virtual designs, icons and animated characters in its ambit.

These changes, which are in accordance with 含羞草社区 obligations under the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), will overhaul the existing design registration and protection regime, presently restricted only to physical goods. It will also have far-reaching implications for technology-related businesses across the spectrum, including operating systems, web browsers, gaming and data analytics.

While the expanded scope is welcome, the Concept Note, being only a set of proposals, will need much more clarification before it can become law. For instance, how must virtual designs be registered? The law presently requires two-dimensional representations and hardware depictions of designs to be supplied along with applications. But with virtual designs, modes of representation will have to change as well, such as video clips or other digital formats.

However, if India were to require such newer modes, applicants seeking priority from their Indian applications could encounter hurdles abroad. For example, the EU presently only recognises static views for the purpose of registration. Changes must not only consider the Indian jurisdiction in isolation, but also enable and seamlessly facilitate transnational protection.

India design-copyright overlap raises questions

Another major recommendation in the Concept Note is to amend section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 to allow copyright protection for certain designs (i.e. that are registrable but not registered under the Designs Act) for 15 years. While this offers a wider range of protections, it risks rendering the Designs Act otiose, since applicants may no longer be incentivised to register designs at all, as protection will be available under copyright.

Parity of protection is also an issue here: ordinarily, copyright protection subsists for the lifetime of the author plus a specified number of years, depending on the type of copyrighted work. But this amendment provides for a flat 15-year term of protection for unregistered designs, regardless of authorship.

Another issue is when this 15-year term commences, is it on the date of creation, publication or commercial exploitation? Separately, is the 15-year term restricted to industrial designs or the work as a whole, and will copyright persist for the artistic components of the work?

On the design-copyright intersection alone, a host of questions emerge. Some proposals invite questions about balancing interests. For instance, the Concept Note introduces the idea of deferred publication of design applications as being favourable to businesses, as full disclosures before assessing a product’s market viability could impact commercial value. But this introduces uncertainties for third parties seeking to commercialise products, who cannot in this scenario ascertain if a design is protected during the deferment period.

The Concept Note tries to allay this concern by recognising the “innocent infringer” defence, but permits injunctions against innocent infringers once they are made aware of infringement. Surely, this is unfair to those who began activities in good faith and made significant capital investment in design and production.

Indian design law modernisation talks continue

Several rounds of consultation remain and many recommendations need ironing out still. But most importantly, this Concept Note has started a conversation around the modernisation of Indian design law. Over the decades, the bulk of regulatory attention has been directed to patents, trademarks and copyrights.

Yet since its enactment in 2000, the Designs Act has never been modified, with only two rounds of amendments to its accompanying rules. 2026 might well mark the year of change for Indian designs.

Essenese Obhan is the managing partner and Sneha Gandhi is a partner at Obhan Mason