JUDGMENT :

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

1. All these statutory appeals have been filed under the Designs Act, 2000 (the Act) and raise a common question “Whether Graphic User Interface (GUI) satisfies the criteria of a design making it eligible for registration under the Act?”

2. GUI is a form of user interface which allows users to interact with electronic devices through graphical icons and visuals in indicators such as secondary notation. In computing, a GUI is a visual way for users to interact with devices using elements like icons, windows, menus and buttons instead of typing commands.

The appellants:

3. The common thread in the arguments of all the appellants is that, there is misconceived notion in the Office of Designs that GUIs are not per se registrable under the Act. In construing the definitions of “article” under section 2(a) and “design” under section 2(d) of the Act, the respondent authorities have adopted an unduly strict and narrow interpretation. All the impugned orders proceed on the basis that the Locarno classification which had introduced GUI registration as a design is only of administrative assistance and in the absence of any amendment to the Act, does not aid in interpreting the definition of either “article” or “design”. The impugned orders have also erroneously interpreted that GUIs are not “applied by any industrial means or process” and hence do not fall within the definition of “design”. In addition, the impugned orders are flawed inasmuch as it has been held that since GUIs are neither sold nor manufactured separately they cannot be treated as an “article”. The impugned orders have also proceeded on the misconception that all foreign decisions are inapplicable since the definitions of design, article and industrial processes in those jurisdictions are different from the Act. The fact that a GUI is visible only when the device is switched ON and remains ON is another factor which has weighed in rejecting registration of GUIs. There is also no element of permanence in a GUI which makes the same not registrable. The order dated 6 July, 2023 passed in UST Global (Singapore) vs. Controller of Patents and Designs by the Controller is based on a misinterpretation of the Act. An additional ground in some of the appeals is one of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the orders are non speaking. In such circumstances, it is contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and all the applications be remanded for rehearing.

4. For convenience, the respective appeals are summarized below:

IPDAID 21 OF 2024: NEC Corporation

This is an appeal against an order dated 1 October 2019 in application no 285453 whereby a design claimed on novelty residing in the shape and pattern of the display screen with the GUI has been rejected on the ground that GUI does not constitute an article within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act. It is the display screen hosting the GUI which qualifies as an article and hence makes the GUI incapable of being registered. It has also been held that GUI is not applied through an industrial process to an article. In effect, the GUI fundamentally consists of mere software codes and has no element of permanence and is only seen when an associate device is switched on which does not justify registration.

IPDAID 22 of 2024: ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH

This is an appeal against an order dated 20 September 2019 rejecting application no 277243 titled ‘A Display Unit for a High Frequency Generator’ which was subsequently amended to “Display Screen for an Electrosurgical High Frequency Generator” claiming novelty in shape, pattern and ornamentation on the ground that GUI cannot be categorized as surface ornamentation or pattern as the same is only visible when connected to a computing system and turned ON. Hence, GUI is based solely as a software application and is merely functional lacking consistent eye appeal which fails to satisfy the ingredients both under section 2(a) and