Background
In Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. The Controller of Patents and Designs (6 July 2023), the Calcutta High Court set aside a GUI design refusal and remanded the application, holding the Controller had failed to consider the 2021 Design Rules amendment and the 2008 amendment adopting the Locarno Classification, and that a GUI's "ephemeral" on-screen nature does not defeat registrability under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. Despite this guidance, the Patent Office continued refusing GUI applications on materially the same grounds — prompting four separate but overlapping appeals, later heard together: NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs (IPDAID/21/2024, application No. 285453, rejected 1 October 2019), ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. The Controller (IPDAID/22/2024, application No. 277243, an electrosurgical generator display screen, rejected 20 September 2019), Abiomed Inc. v. The Assistant Controller (IPDAID/1/2025 and IPDAID/2/2025, vehicle dashboard panel designs Nos. 397600-001/002, rejected 17 February 2025), and TVS Motor Company Ltd. v. The Assistant Controller (IPDAID/3/2025, application No. 393339-001, rejected 31 May 2024).
The Patent Office's Grounds for Refusal
- GUIs are said to be ephemeral, lacking permanence, and invisible once the device is switched off.
- GUIs are treated as software code rather than an "article" within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Designs Act.
- GUIs are not "applied to an article" through an industrial process, a threshold requirement under Section 2(d).
- The Controllers relied on the earlier Ust Global order narrowly, while TVS additionally alleged its refusal was a non-speaking order breaching natural justice.
The Appellants' Case and the Amicus Appointment
The four appellants argued that the 2021 Design Rules amendments expressly incorporated the Locarno Classification's GUI categories (including Class 14-04, Screen Displays and Icons), signalling clear legislative intent to treat GUIs as registrable subject matter. Given the recurring, unresolved tension between the Patent Office's refusals and the Court's own earlier guidance in Ust Global, the Calcutta High Court appointed Adv. Adarsh Ramanujan as amicus curiae to assist in resolving the question comprehensively across all four appeals, rather than deciding each in isolation.
Why It Matters
This consolidated proceeding set the stage directly for the Calcutta High Court's subsequent landmark ruling in NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs (9 March 2026), which conclusively held that GUIs are registrable designs under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) — a significant outcome for software, medical device, automotive, and consumer electronics companies seeking design protection for app interfaces, dashboards, and on-screen displays in India.