In modern software products, the user interface is the commercial face of the technology. For fintech, SaaS, gaming, and consumer platforms, UI and UX determine adoption, retention, and valuation.
Yet under Indian law, UI and UX sit in an uneasy position.
Most Indian design examiners reject GUI and UI filings on a single recurring ground:
The design is not applied to an article of manufacture capable of being made and sold separately.
Any serious UI IP strategy in India must therefore be built around this structural limitation and must layer protection across design, copyright, and trademark law.
Navigating the "Article" Hurdle: UI Protection under the Designs Act, 2000
Decoding Section 2(a): The Statutory Definition of an Article in the Digital Age
Section 2(a) of the Designs Act defines an article as an article of manufacture and any substance, artificial or partly artificial.
Indian examiners consistently interpret this to require:
· A physical object
· Capable of being manufactured
· Capable of being sold separately
A pure screen display or GUI is usually treated as:
· A transient image
· Dependent on software
· Not independently marketable
Based on current IPO examination practice in 2025–2026, this interpretation remains dominant.
Overcoming the "Separability" Objection: Current IPO Examination Practice (2025–2026)
The most common objection reads in substance:
· The GUI is not an article
· The design cannot be made or sold separately
· The design is software, not manufacture
Even when:
· The UI is shown on a phone
· The device is depicted in dotted lines
· Locarno Class 14-04 is cited
Examiners often still maintain that:
A screen display is not an article of manufacture.
Judicial remands since 2023 have not created binding acceptance. Registration remains examiner-sensitive and unpredictable.
Locarno Class 14-04 and the Registration of Graphical User Interfaces
Class 14-04 covers screen displays and icons.
However:
· Classification does not override Section 2(a)
· Locarno does not create substantive rights
· Acceptance depends on examiner discretion
According to publicly observable IPO practice, Class 14-04 improves formality acceptance but does not cure the separability objection.
Strategic Drafting: Illustrating the Design on a Disclosed Hardware Device
The only drafting strategy that occasionally succeeds is:
· Title the article as “Display screen of a mobile device”
· Show the device in dotted lines
· Claim only the screen content in solid lines
· Emphasize visual enhancement of the hardware
Even with this, rejection risk remains high.
Design filing for UI in India is therefore:
· Technically possible
· Doctrinally fragile
· Enforcement risky
Copyright as the Primary Layer for Artistic and Literary Elements
Section 13(1)(a): Protecting Layouts and Icons as Artistic Works
UI elements such as:
· Icons
· Button designs
· Screen layouts
· Graphic compositions
Qualify as artistic works under Section 13(1)(a).
Protection arises automatically on creation.
Copyright protects:
· Direct copying
· Asset theft
· Pixel-level replication
It does not protect:
· Functional layout logic
· General interaction patterns
· Methods of operation
The Interplay Between Section 15(2) and Software Scaling
Section 15(2) extinguishes copyright only when:
· The work is capable of being registered as a design
· It is applied to an article
· It is reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process
In actual Indian UI practice:
· Most IPO examiners hold that GUI is not capable of design registration
· Therefore Section 15(2) usually does not operate to kill UI copyright
This is a critical doctrinal point.
The greater risk arises only when:
· A UI design is in fact registrable as a design
· It is applied to a physical device design
· Design registration was omitted
For pure software UI, copyright generally survives.
Source Code vs. Visual Interface: Managing the Distinction in Filings
Two distinct layers exist:
· Source code as literary work
· UI as artistic work
Best practice:
· Register source code separately
· Register key screens as artistic works
· Preserve version histories
This is the most reliable Indian protection layer.
Trade Dress and the "Look and Feel" Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Establishing Distinctiveness in Digital Interfaces
Trade dress protects:
· Overall visual identity
· Layout consistency
· Colour combinations
· Screen structure
But only after:
· Substantial use
· Consumer recognition
· Secondary meaning
This is not a launch-stage right.
Passing Off Actions for UX Plagiarism
Indian courts have been more receptive to:
· UI passing off claims
· Look and feel copying
· Workflow imitation
The plaintiff must prove:
· Goodwill in the UI
· Misrepresentation
· Likelihood of damage
This is evidentiary heavy but often effective.
Color Schemes and Non-Traditional Trademarks in UI
Non-traditional marks include:
· Color combinations
· Motion marks
· Loading animations
Registration is rare but enforcement through passing off is viable for mature products.
Global Prosecution Strategy: USPTO Design Patents vs. EUIPO RCDs
The USPTO Approach: Identifying the Article of Manufacture
The US treats:
· Screen displays
· Icons
· GUIs
As ornamental designs for an article of manufacture.
USPTO allows:
· Static GUIs
· Animated sequences
· Partial screen claims
This is the strongest GUI jurisdiction.
EUIPO Practice: Protection for Icons and Screen Displays
EUIPO accepts:
· Pure screen designs
· Device-independent GUIs
· Multiple designs per filing
Substantive examination is minimal.
WIPO Hague System for Global UX Portfolios
Hague allows:
· Single filing
· Multi-country designation
· Unified priority
But India’s own substantive refusal practice remains unaffected.
|
Jurisdiction |
GUI Design Acceptance |
|
India |
Low, examiner-dependent |
|
USA |
High |
|
EU |
High |
|
China |
High |
Strategic Enforcement: Takedowns, Injunctions and Market Moats
App Store and Play Store Takedowns using Multi-Layer IP
Most UI enforcement uses:
· Copyright notices
· Trademark complaints
· Contract breach
Design is rarely the primary weapon in India.
Dynamic Injunctions for Software Clones
Courts increasingly grant:
· Dynamic injunctions
· Extension to mirror apps
- Multi-account enforcement
Decision Matrix: When to Assert Design vs. Copyright
|
Scenario |
Best Right |
|
Asset theft |
Copyright |
|
Screen copying |
Copyright |
|
Hardware-tied UI |
Design plus copyright |
|
Mature interface |
Trade dress |
Implementation Protocol for Product and Legal Teams
Pre-Release UI/UX Audit Checklist
· Is UI tied to proprietary hardware
· Is design filing worth examiner risk
· Have copyright registrations been filed
· Are contractors assigned IP
· Has public disclosure been avoided before filing
Evidentiary Requirements for UX Distinctiveness
Maintain:
· Creation logs
· Marketing material
· User recognition evidence
· Version histories
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
Why are most UI designs rejected in India?
Because examiners hold that UI is not an article capable of being made and sold separately.
Does showing a phone cure the objection?
Sometimes. Often still rejected. Examiner discretion dominates.
Is Locarno Class 14-04 sufficient?
No. It does not override Section 2(a).
Does Section 15(2) usually kill UI copyright?
No. Because IPO itself usually says UI is not design-registrable.
Should startups file UI designs in India?
Only selectively. Often wasteful.
Where should UI be protected first?
USA, EU, China.
Is trade dress realistic for UI?
Only for mature products with strong recognition.
Can UX flows be protected?
Rarely. Mostly unprotectable.
Is animation protectable in India?
Usually no. Static frames may be attempted.
What is the safest Indian strategy?
Copyright plus contracts plus foreign design filings.
Can Hague help Indian UI protection?
Yes, only for foreign jurisdictions.
What is the biggest risk?
Assuming design protection will be granted in India.