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.
3
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.
