GUI & Icon Design Registration in India: Draft Guidelines

By Vikrant Rana

I. Introduction

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has put out draft Guidelines for Registration of Designs relating to GUI & Icon etc. under the Designs Act, 2000 and the Designs Rules, 2001. The draft was published on the IP India website by public notice dated 1 October 2026, and stakeholders have been asked to send comments and suggestions to controllerdesign.ipo@nic.in and cgoffice.in@gov.in within 30 days of the notice, that is, by 31 October 2026. The draft sets out how Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs), icons and similar subject matter are to be titled, classified, represented and examined.

The draft is expressly built on the judgment dated 09-03-2026 of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. It states that it is not based on any proposed amendment to the Designs Act, including the DPIIT Concept Note dated 23.01.2026; that it does not create, enlarge, restrict or modify the scope of registrability or protection; and that, in case of conflict, the Act and the Rules prevail.

This alert separates what the Court held from what the Office now proposes, and then offers our preliminary observations and practical takeaways for applicants.

II. Background: The Calcutta High Court Judgment

The draft records (clause 2.3) the Court’s conclusions in IPAID 21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025 and IPDAID/3/2025, reproducing paragraphs 25 and 26.

• No per se exclusion. A GUI inherently comprises iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, which are the kind of visual features the Act contemplates. There is no per se exclusion for GUIs under Section 2(d). The Controller’s contention that the Act has no provision protecting GUIs within Sections 2(a) and 2(d) was held incorrect and legally untenable.
• Inconsistent Office practice. The Court noted a lack of clarity in the Designs Office and recorded earlier registrations: three Siemens registrations (Class 14-02, Monitor with GUI), Kneevoice (Class 14-04, Mobile, GUI shown) and LG (Class 14-04, Navigation Device for vehicle with GUI).
• Need for guidance. The Court referred to a WIPO survey reporting that 92% of jurisdictions protect GUIs under design laws, and to a similar ICC study, and said clarificatory guidance was necessary, either from the Legislature or by the Controller issuing directions.
• Interim position. In the meantime, GUIs are registrable case by case after satisfying Sections 2(a) and 2(d), when properly identified with an article and where the design elements are not purely function driven.

III. Key Details of the Draft Guidelines

A. Four admissibility criteria (clause 4)

• Identification with an article (4.1). The GUI or icon must be applied to a mobile phone, tablet, monitor, wearable device or other display-enabled article. A standalone GUI or icon is not registrable.
• Visibility (4.2). It must be visually perceptible during normal use. That it is visible only when the device is powered on, is non-permanent or is non-tactile does not, by itself, count against registrability.
• Industrial process (4.3). Generation and display through electronic means and execution of software is treated as sufficient application by an industrial process.
• Novelty and originality (4.4). The design must be new or original, not previously disclosed, and not scandalous or obscene under Section 4.

B. Titles and classification (clauses 5.1 and 5.2)

Per se GUIs, icons, surface patterns and ornamentation are not registrable, because in isolation they are not an “article” under Section 2(a); they qualify only when clearly applied to or embodied in a specific article (5.1.1). Where novelty lies only in the interface, classification may be under Class 14-04 (“Screen displays and icons”) even if the interface is shown on an article of another class; where novelty lies mainly in the article, the article class applies; and where both are independently novel, the applicant may file separate applications (5.1.2). The draft gives these illustrative titles:

Illustrative allowable title	Class–subclass
Touchscreen with Icons	14-04
Computer monitor with GUI	14-04
Mobile Phone with GUI	14-03
Screen Display on TV	14-03
Tablet with Icon	14-02
GUI on Speedometer	10-04
Activity trackers with GUI	10-04
Smart Watch with GUI	10-02

Titles such as “GUI”, “Icon” (14-04) and “Graphic Symbol” (32-01), without any article or device reference, are given as non-allowable (5.2). Surface patterns and ornamentation, once applied to an identifiable article, are classified by that article and not under Class 32-01 (5.1.3).

C. Representations, statement of novelty and disclaimers (clause 5.3 to 5.7)

• Representations must comply with Rule 14 of the Designs Rules and clearly depict the GUI or icon applied to an article.
• The GUI or icon is shown in solid lines; portions not claimed, such as the device frame, may be shown in broken lines and are not part of the design. Alternatively the whole design may be in solid lines with the GUI or icon pin-pointed. If the device itself is also claimed, the whole representation is in solid lines.
• A front or perspective view ordinarily suffices; additional views must be consistent and represent the same design.
• A Statement of Novelty is mandatory. The draft’s four model statements refer to “surface ornamentation”, “surface pattern”, “shape configuration and surface ornamentation”, and ornamentation “particularly in the portion pin-pointed as A, B…”.
• Standard disclaimers (dotted or dashed lines, mode or principle of construction, functionality, numbers, letters, symbols, trademarks) are to be included case by case.

D. Dynamic and animated GUIs (clause 6)

Dynamic, animated, sequential, transformable or transitional GUIs are admissible, but only if the representation of each frame is filed as a separate design. The draft’s example shows two frames filed either as XXXXXX-001 and XXXXXX-002, or as XXXXXX-001 and YYYYYY-001.

E. Examination, objections and scope (clauses 7 to 9)

GUI applications are examined under Sections 2, 4, 5 and 35 and the Rules like any other design, with attention to title, class, article identification, visual appeal and non-functionality, novelty, and consistency and clarity of representations. Notably, the Office will search Class 14-04 in addition to the article class wherever GUI features are disclosed. Objections may arise on improper title or class, design not applied to an article, purely functional subject matter, lack of novelty, inconsistent or unclear representations, and an improper statement of novelty. Registered GUI and icon designs enjoy the same scope, rights and term as other designs under the Act.

IV. Analysis and Observations

1. A welcome, article-anchored opening. Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 remove two objections that applicants have long worried about: that a GUI is not visible unless the device is on, and that software-generated display is not an industrial process. Both are now addressed in terms. The price is the article requirement, which the draft applies firmly: no article, no registration.
2. Classification is the draft’s softest spot. Clause 5.1.2 says an interface-only novelty may go to Class 14-04 even when shown on another class’s article, yet the title table in 5.1.4 assigns article-specific classes (for example Mobile Phone with GUI in 14-03, Tablet with Icon in 14-02). It is unclear which controls. The table also differs from the classes recorded by the Court in the earlier registrations: Monitor with GUI sat in 14-02 there but is 14-04 in the draft; Mobile (GUI shown) sat in 14-04 there but Mobile Phone with GUI is 14-03 in the draft. Under Rule 10(1) of the Designs Rules, 2001, as amended in 2021, articles are classified according to the current edition of the Locarno Classification, under which 14-04 is the subclass for screen displays and icons. Measured against the article headings, the table mixes two approaches. Mobile Phone with GUI (14-03, telecommunications equipment, which the Rules note as covering telephone and television apparatus), Screen Display on TV (14-03), Tablet with Icon (14-02, data processing equipment), GUI on Speedometer and Activity trackers with GUI (10-04, measuring instruments) and Smart Watch with GUI (10-02, watches) follow the article class, whereas Touchscreen with Icons and Computer monitor with GUI are placed in the interface subclass 14-04 even though a monitor is ordinarily a 14-02 article, as the earlier Siemens registrations reflect. Because class may bear on how protection is later assessed, applicants will want certainty here.
3. Dynamic GUIs are protected frame by frame, not as motion. The draft allows protection of individual states of an animated or transitional GUI, but not of the animation or transition as such. The Court, as reproduced in the draft, observed that several other jurisdictions treat animation, movement and transition as eligible. The draft itself disclaims any reliance on proposed legislative change, so this limitation may be the price of working within the existing Act. The numbering example (XXXXXX-001/-002 versus XXXXXX-001/YYYYYY-001) also leaves unclear whether the two routes differ in procedure or fees.
4. The per se bar reaches beyond GUIs. Clause 5.1.1 groups surface patterns and ornamentation with GUIs and icons, and clause 5.1.3 re-routes them to article classes. If this is intended to alter existing practice for pattern designs generally, applicants outside the digital space should take note. That said, the draft states that it does not create, enlarge, restrict or modify the scope of registrability under the Designs Act, 2000, and it does not amend the Act or the Rules. Read with clauses 5.1.2 and 5.3.1, the change appears to be one of filing practice and classification rather than of substantive law: where the article as well as the GUI or icon is novel, the applicant may file separate applications, and where only the GUI or icon is claimed, the article may be shown in broken lines. For pattern designs, the practical shift is classification by the article to which the pattern is applied rather than under Class 32-01.
5. Functionality will be the main battleground. The Court tied registrability to design elements not being purely function driven, and “purely functional” appears in the objection list. Yet the draft’s own definitions describe a GUI as the means “through which a user interacts” and an icon as a symbol representing “a function, command, or application”. The draft offers no examples of a layout that is aesthetic versus one dictated by function, and examiners will be left to draw the line.
6. Claim drafting needs care. The draft is silent on colour, although the Court identified colour schemes as part of a GUI’s visual character. Its model novelty statements describe a GUI mainly as surface ornamentation or surface pattern, which may sit awkwardly with a layout-driven interface. Real interfaces also contain text, numerals, logos and third-party marks, which fall within the standard disclaimers and, under Section 2(d) as quoted in the draft, outside the definition of a design to the extent they are trade marks or artistic works.
7. Open practical questions. The draft does not say how it applies to pending or previously refused GUI applications; whether GUIs shown on projected, augmented or similar non-screen displays are covered by “display-enabled article”; how a GUI used across several devices is to be filed; or what disclosures, such as an app release or website launch, will count as prior publication under Section 4.

V. Invitation to Clients and Associates: Feedback

SSRANA proposes to submit consolidated comments on the draft to the Office of the CGPDTM. We invite our clients, referral associates and other stakeholders to share their feedback with us before 25 October 2026, so that practical experience from different sectors and jurisdictions can be reflected in our submission.

Feedback of particular value includes:

• experience with GUI, icon or screen-display filings, refusals or objections in India or elsewhere;
• how classification, titles and the article requirement would work for your products, including non-handheld, projected or multi-device interfaces;
• how animated or transitional interfaces are protected in your home jurisdiction, and whether frame-by-frame filing would meet your needs;
• concerns about representations, colour, text and logos, statements of novelty, or the treatment of pending applications.

VI. Conclusion

The draft gives GUI and icon applicants a clearer route than they have had, and it follows the Calcutta High Court’s approach closely: registrable when properly tied to an article and not purely functional. Its limits are equally clear. Protection is article-bound, animation is protected only frame by frame, and several practical points on classification, claim drafting and transition remain open. As a draft it may change, and applicants should not yet treat it as settled practice.