Protecting Graphical User Interface (GUI) under Indian National Design Policy

 Xerox Corporation invented the graphic user interface (GUI) in the late 1970s. The first person to see its commercial potential was Steve Jobs. The idea of GUI was included into Apple's operating system Lisa after it was realised for what it was. Later, the Windows operating system from Microsoft incorporated the same idea. Unsurprisingly, Apple sued Microsoft right away, and Apple in turn sued Xerox. All three parties reached an amicable settlement to end the legal dispute.

The GUI has evolved into an essential and vital component of the software product market with the advancement of technology and the integration of electronic gadgets in our daily lives. The following article outlines the present level of protection given to GUI in India under the Designs Act, 2000, National Design Policy, and the gaps in the law caused by how quickly the world is changing.

A GUI is an interface that enables a user to communicate with a computer or other electronic device by using symbols, icons, menus, pointing devices, etc. that are presented on the screen of that device. Examples of such devices include machines, smartphones, smart watches, etc. It projects the "look and feel" of any interactive electronic gadget in addition to offering end users utility. As a result, it has grown in significance in the field of software goods because it determines both the user effectiveness of a product and the aesthetic distinction between competing solutions.

In a recent dispute between JioMeet and Zoom (a video conference platform), Zoom contemplated taking legal action against JioMeet for allegedly presenting a user experience that was similar to that of its platform. Zoom, however, only considered filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement because its user interface was not registered as a design in India.

Legislations and objectives

The Designs Act, 2000 and its companion Designs Rules, 2001 govern design registrations in India. Microsoft received a design registration under the Act in 2006 for its screen displays and iconography. This established a standard for succeeding years, and in some instances, GUIs were given design registration. The National Design Policy was subsequently introduced by the government in 2007, with the aim of developing a "industry empowered by design" in India. The industry needed comprehensive protection for designs, both material and intangible, as it was now bubbling with confidence.

The Design Rules were modified in 2008 to meet with the worldwide classification of goods and the "Locarno Classification" was adopted into the Indian Design Law in order to carry out the objectives of the National Design Policy. The 2008 modification brought about the registration of GUIs in India and included a new class '14-04' titled "Screen Displays and Icons." These developments demonstrated the lawmakers' and policymakers' explicit intention to turn India into a GUI-protecting territory.

However, the initial promises were short-lived as authorities started to thoroughly examine citing interpretation of new part of law.

Shifts in Position of GUI

The Indian Design Registry has been hesitant and reluctant to register GUIs notwithstanding past registration of GUIs, such as in the case of Microsoft, and the protection offered by the Design Rules. According to the Registry, GUIs do not meet the requirements for designs under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act, and as a result, registration cannot be granted. Article and design are defined in these provisions of the Act, respectively.

The definitions outlined by the Act are especially called out. For instance, Amazon Inc. submitted a design registration application under class "14-02" of the Act in 2014 with the title "Graphic user interface for delivering extra information of a digital work to a display screen." The Design Rules protected GUIs at the time the application was submitted, however the Controller of Designs determined that GUIs are ineligible for design registration because they do not meet the Act's requirements for a "article" and "design."

Amazon's application was denied, but the Controller made a number of important points about the issue. It maintained:

1. The design classification's class number should not be the only factor taken into account when determining whether to issue registration. The registration must also adhere to the Designs Act's definitions of "item" and "design."

2. According to the statute, an article's function is not eligible for a design registration. However, a GUI or screen display was seen as a feature of a computer screen that is only operational when the machine is turned on. As a result, it does not satisfy the definition's criterion that a design have a constant eye appeal.

3. Screen displays are controlled by an item's function, such as a computer or a mobile phone. They lack characteristics of shape, configuration, or other design criteria. As a result, a screen display cannot be regarded as a "completed" object that was produced through an industrial process and simply evaluated by the sight, as required by the act's definition.

4. A GUI cannot be translated from physical input to physical output, hence it will not be regarded as an article of manufacturing under the act's definition.

5. A GUI does not comply with the requirements of an article in the act since it is not physically accessible and cannot be sold separately as a commodity item in the market.

Rationale behind controller's decision

The key justification for the Controller's choice was that a design must "consistently" appeal to the eye and be able to be evaluated merely on the basis of appearance in order to be considered eligible. However, once the electronic device is turned off, the GUI design disappears completely. As a result, a GUI does not satisfy the Act's requirements for a design. The Indian Design Registry continues to object to the registration of "Screen Displays and Icons" under class 14-04 because this case has served as an example for the Registry. For businesses and entrepreneurs trying to protect and make money off of their designs, this arbitraryness in awarding design protection has turned into a serious barrier.

Interpretation of definition of "Design"

As stated above, a design must:

Be applied to a specific product - In our situation, this requirement is met because the GUI is applied to the monitor or display panel of the specific electronic equipment that is carrying it.

be applied to a product by a technique or means used in industry, whether manual, mechanical, chemical, or both. This criteria is also met in our situation. The processing unit of the electronic device is an industrially produced fitted machine that applies the GUI (design) to the monitor or display screen. The electronic device as a whole is made in an industrial setting (article).

In the finished product, it must be aesthetically pleasing and able to be evaluated only on the basis of appearance. An interface designed to be seen and assessed by the eye is called a GUI. The purpose of creating a GUI is to give the user a visually engaging experience in which they can only control or operate the device after seeing the interface. Therefore, software developers create GUIs that are aesthetically pleasing to the consumers in order to provide an efficient and distinctive experience. As a result, the design (GUI) is eye-catching and suitable for evaluation only by the sight.

This also satisfies the criterion that the design be applied to a finished product. When an electrical equipment can carry out its intended purpose and is ready for sale, it is deemed finished. The "power/switched on" article is the completed product in circumstances involving electronic equipment. As a result, the GUI that appears when the product is turned on is being applied to a final product that can be sold.

To get more information, read entire article on National Design Policy