Designs Act Reform 2026: DPIIT Concept Note Explained, Protecting India’s Digital and Virtual Designs

In January 2026, India’s Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) published a Concept Note proposing significant reforms to the Designs Act, 2000, to extend formal design protection to virtual and digital creations without requiring a physical product. The proposals aim to redefine the intellectual property landscape for the digital economy. Addressing the limitations of the current law, the DPIIT Concept Note which presupposes a tangible physical article, the reforms seek to protect digital-first innovations such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs), AR/VR elements and animations.

This article analyses the proposed expansion of the definitions of “article” and “design”, the 12-month grace period, the 30-month deferred publication option, statutory damages and the other procedural reforms. It also examines the intersection between software copyright and design registration, and the Concept Note’s alignment with international frameworks such as the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty, which would ease cross-border protection for Indian innovators.

Introduction

Historically, industrial design law has been tied to physical reality. When Parliament enacted the Designs Act, 2000, replacing the century-old Patents and Designs Act, 1911, the global economy was predominantly oriented around tangible manufactured goods. The Designs Act, 2000 required a design to be applied to a tangible article. This created legal uncertainty for the modern digital economy. Over the past two decades, technology has shifted user interaction away from physical buttons towards screen-based visual elements. Software companies, video game developers, fintech innovators and creators in the augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) sectors routinely invest significant capital in developing unique, highly functional visual interfaces. Yet, under the classic reading of the Designs Act, 2000, the legal status of these digital assets remained ambiguous.

The Indian Patent Office has occasionally allowed the registration of GUIs when presented alongside a physical device such as a computer monitor or mobile phone screen, but its practice has been inconsistent. In March 2026, the Calcutta High Court in NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs settled the point under the existing Act. It held that GUIs, icons and screen layouts can qualify for registration on a case-by-case basis if they satisfy the definitions in Sections 2(a) and 2(d); that “article” must be read purposively to include the display unit or finished product on which the GUI appears; and that “industrial process” includes software-based digital rendering. The Court set aside the Controller’s refusals and remanded the applications for fresh consideration, while calling for legislative or administrative guidance.

Even after NEC, however, purely digital assets decoupled from specific hardware lack robust statutory protection, because Sections 2(a) and 2(d) still presuppose a physical article. To bridge this gap, DPIIT released its Concept Note on 23 January 2026, publicised through a Press Information Bureau release on 29 January 2026, and invited public comments within thirty days. The proposed reforms explicitly modify the definitions to remove the physical requirement, allowing GUIs, icons, AR/VR elements and dynamic animations to be registered as independent assets.

Key Proposals in the DPIIT Concept Note

The proposals in the Concept Note focus on supporting fast-moving, technology-driven industries. The principal ones are:

• Virtual design scope: The definition of “article” would be expanded to include digital media, screen displays and virtual entities existing solely in cloud, digital or simulated environments, bringing several new classes within the scope of registrable designs. The definition of “design” would likewise be widened to cover non-physical subject matter such as GUIs, icons, graphic symbols, animations, movement and transitions, and AR or VR interfaces, expressly decoupling design protection from physical embodiment.
• Grace period: A 12-month grace period would replace the current narrow six-month exception for disclosure at notified exhibitions under Section 21, letting creators test market viability before filing and disclose designs publicly (for example, in investor pitch decks or beta testing) without losing the right to file.
• Deferred publication: Applicants could choose to defer publication of a registered design for up to 30 months from the filing or priority date, maintaining confidentiality ahead of a product launch in competitive sectors.
• Strengthened statutory remedies: Statutory damages would be introduced for wilful design infringement, within a prescribed minimum and a maximum of ₹50 lakh for a first instance of infringement, with enhanced bands for repeat infringers.
• Multiple design filings: A single consolidated application could cover multiple designs falling in the same class, easing the administrative burden and simplifying filing and examination for startups, MSMEs and individual designers.
• Division of applications: To increase procedural flexibility, divisional applications would be permitted in line with Article 9 of the Riyadh Design Law Treaty, which deals with the amendment or division of an application containing more than one design. A divisional application allows an applicant to split a pending application into two or more separate applications, typically where a single filing covers several distinct designs or where objections are raised during examination, so that problems with one design do not hold up the entire application.
• Term of protection: The term would be restructured from the present 10 + 5 years to a 5 + 5 + 5 structure (still capped at 15 years), aligning with Article 17 of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement.
• Copyright–design interface: The Concept Note also proposes amending Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. At present, copyright in a design that is capable of registration under the Designs Act but has not been registered ceases as soon as the article has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process. The proposal is to replace this with a fixed maximum term of 15 years, reconciling the two statutes and preventing attempts to claim long-term copyright monopolies over industrially applied designs.
• Accession to international instruments: The Note proposes India’s accession to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement, with a new chapter in the Act to handle international registrations designating India.

Statutory Enforcement Enhancements

Enforcing intellectual property rights in digital spaces presents distinct challenges. Unlike tangible goods, digital assets can be copied instantly and distributed worldwide at zero marginal cost. Under the existing framework, a registered proprietor suing for piracy of a design under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 may either recover a fixed sum of up to ₹25,000 for each contravention, capped at ₹50,000 in total for any one design, or bring a suit for damages and an injunction, in which actual loss must be proved. In digital ecosystems, where a pirated interface or cloned icon may be distributed within a free app to drive advertising revenue, the fixed statutory sum is nominal and proving actual financial loss is difficult and expensive.

To address this, the DPIIT Concept Note proposes statutory damages for wilful design infringement, empowering courts to award up to ₹50 lakh for a first instance (and higher amounts for repeat infringers) where actual loss is difficult to prove. Once design piracy is established, a meaningful financial penalty can be imposed without requiring the rights-holder to produce complex proof of loss. This mechanism would act as a strong deterrent against digital piracy, equipping creators with the tools needed to defend their assets in court.

Impact of International Harmonisation

The Concept Note is framed to align Indian design law with the Hague System and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), adopted on 22 November 2024, and paves the way for India to participate in the international registration system. India signed the Final Act of the Riyadh diplomatic conference but has not yet acceded to either instrument. Once India accedes to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, an Indian enterprise would be able to file a single international design application to secure protection across the Hague Union, which now covers nearly 100 countries, avoiding the high cost of filing separate applications in each jurisdiction. The alignment also prepares India for the DLT, which standardises filing formalities globally and offers safeguards such as relief for missed time limits and the correction of priority claims.

By modernising its laws, India lowers cross-border compliance barriers for domestic software exporters while offering international technology companies a secure, predictable legal environment for their investments.

Conclusion

If enacted, the proposals in the DPIIT Concept Note would mark a significant modernisation of Indian design law. By proposing to decouple design rights from physical carriers, introduce a meaningful grace period and a deferred publication option, strengthen enforcement through statutory damages and align procedural rules with international frameworks, the Concept Note addresses long-standing gaps that have left virtual and digital designs in a position of uncertainty.

While the proposals remain at the consultation stage and their final form will depend on stakeholder feedback and the parliamentary process, they represent an important step towards making Indian design law more technology-neutral and globally compatible. In the interim, rights holders and practitioners should continue to use the existing statutory framework, as clarified by NEC Corporation, while closely monitoring further developments.

References

• Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Concept Note: Proposed Amendment to the Designs Act, 2000 (January 2026): gov.in
• Press Information Bureau, “Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade Proposes Amendments to Designs Act to Align with Global Best Practices”, 29 January 2026: gov.in
• The Designs Act, 2000 (No. 16 of 2000), Sections 2(a), 2(d), 21 and 22; The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 15(2).
• NEC Corporation v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr., IPDAID/21/2024 (with connected appeals), Calcutta High Court, judgment dated 9 March 2026, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1652.
• World Intellectual Property Organization, Riyadh Design Law Treaty (adopted 22 November 2024): int
• World Intellectual Property Organization, The Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs: Main Features and Advantages, WIPO Publication No. 911 (2025).

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/intellectual-property-news-updates-2026/