17 March 2026

This paper can also be downloaded as a PDF here. Table of Contents Introduction This note provides comments on the Concept Note published by the government of India proposing a set of amendments to the Designs Act (2000). The Concept Note accurately describes a set of amendments needed to bring Indian procedural law into conformity with the harmonized framework established by the DLT and its Regulations. It also introduces a series of broader reforms addressing subject matter scope, enforcement mechanisms, duration of protection, and the relationship between design and copyright law that are not required by the DLT. In addition, it proposes to join the Hague Agreement, which is not itself required by the DLT. While the substantive reforms and joining the Hague Agreement are consistent with the DLT’s requirements, they are not required by the DLT and may raise policy questions as to the scope of design law that will best further India’s industrial policy interests. Virtual Designs Protection India’s Proposal India is proposing to amend the Designs Act to protect graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, animations, and other virtual designs. Although the 2021 amendment to the Designs Rules aligned classification with the Locarno system to include GUIs and virtual designs, the Designs Act (2000) continues to refer to physical articles, creating uncertainty for digital designs. The proposal seeks to revise the definitions of “design” and “article” to include virtual and non-physical forms, including animated and screen-based designs, and to make related changes to infringement provisions so that protection does not depend on physical embodiment. DLT Comparison and Analysis India’s proposal to amend the Designs Act to expressly protect GUIs, icons, animated designs, and other virtual or non-physical designs is compatible with the DLT and its Regulations adopted on 22 November 2024. Article 2(1) of the DLT establishes that “[n]othing in this Treaty or the Regulations is intended to be construed as prescribing anything that would limit the freedom of a Contracting Party to prescribe such requirements of the applicable substantive law relating to industrial designs as it desires”. This provision clearly confirms that the Treaty does not harmonize substantive design law. It does not define what constitutes an “industrial design, ” nor does it limit the categories of designs that a Contracting Party may choose to protect. Consequently, a national decision to extend protection to virtual, animated, or non-physically embodied designs falls within the substantive autonomy expressly preserved by Article 2(1) . With respect to application formalities, Article 4 sets out an exhaustive list of permissible requirements. Among these is the requirement for “a representation of the industrial design” (Article 4(1)(a)(v)) and “an indication of the product or products which incorporate the industrial design, or in relation to which the industrial design is to be used” (Article 4(1)(a)(vi)). The wording does not restrict the “product” to a physical object. It refers more broadly to products that incorporate the design or in relation to which it is to be used. Assessment The DLT’s definitions are sufficiently flexible to accommodate screen-based images, sequences of views showing movement, or other visual depictions of digital designs. While extending design protection to GUIs and other visual representations is permissible under the DLT, one should note that there is significant criticism by scholars of this approach, especially in the United States of America, where such protection is often granted. The criticisms include: The inclusion of GUI protection in the proposal could raise concerns for India’s vibrant cell phone industry. India’s mobile phone industry has transformed into the second-largest global manufacturer as of 2025, with 99.2% of phones sold domestically being manufactured within the country. India has grown from just two mobile manufacturing units in 2014 to over 300 today. It currently manufactures more than 325–330 million mobile phones annually. The Indian smartphone industry in India has long faced challenges from international brands over uses of GUIs. Indian Patent Office (IPO) has frequently rejected GUI design applications (such as those from Amazon and UST Global) on the grounds that a GUI is not an “article of manufacture. ” The office argued that GUIs are software-driven, visible only when a device is “ON, ” and lack the “constant eye appeal” required for design protection. In UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court held that GUIs can be considered a “design” as they appeal to the eye and influence consumer decisions but the IPO has continued to refuse the UST Global application upon reconsideration. Beyond registration disputes, tech giants like Zoom have contemplated legal action against Indian platforms like JioMeet for allegedly similar user interfaces, though such actions are often framed as copyright infringement due to the design registration hurdles mentioned above. Design-Copyright Interface India’s Proposal India is proposing to amend Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act (1957) to allow copyright protection to continue for designs that are registrable under design law but remain unregistered, while limiting that copyright protection to a maximum term of 15 years. At present, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act (1957) excludes copyright protection for designs that are registered under the Designs Act (2000). However, Section 15(2) provides that where a design is capable of being registered under design law but is not registered, copyright in that work ceases once it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process. The objective is to reconcile copyright and design law by permitting protection while preventing long-term copyright monopolies over subject matter more appropriately governed by design law. DLT Comparison and Analysis This proposal falls entirely outside the scope of the Treaty. The DLT does not regulate the relationship between industrial design protection and copyright protection. Assessment India’s proposed reform of Section 15(2), permitting copyright protection for registrable but unregistered designs while limiting its term to 15 years, raises no compatibility issues under the DLT. It may, however, raise concerns under the Berne Convention, which states that the minimum term of copyrights over works of authorship must be 50 years after the life of the