Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000: Transforming India’s Design Law for the Digital and Global Economy
by Gautam Panchal, (Partner) and Priyanka Prabhakar (Associate)
Design today is far more than surface aesthetics. It shapes how consumers interact with products, technology, and brands, influencing everything from user experience to purchasing decisions and brand loyalty. Reflecting this shift, the WIPO World Intellectual Property Indicators Report 2025 records approximately 1.22 million design applications filed globally in 2024, representing a 2.6% increase over the previous year.
India has emerged as a standout performer in this global landscape. With a 43.2% increase in filings, India was the fastest growing design office worldwide in 2024. A total of 12,160 design applications were filed during the year, moving India from the 11th to the 7th position globally, and placing it firmly among the world’s top ten design jurisdictions. Equally significant is the fact that nearly 90% of these filings came from domestic applicants, highlighting the growing awareness among Indian businesses of design as a commercial and strategic asset.
This surge reflects broader structural changes in India’s innovation ecosystem. Manufacturing expansion, the rise of product-led startups and MSMEs, and the increasing prominence of design-driven sectors such as fashion, automobiles, packaging, electronics, jewellery, and digital services have all contributed to this momentum. Government initiatives such as Make in India and Startup India, together with the Prime Minister’s vision of “Design in India, Design for the World,” have reinforced the role of design in enhancing consumer experience, building strong brands, and competing in global markets. Yet, this rapid evolution has also exposed the limitations of India’s existing legal framework for design protection.
Why the Designs Act, 2000 Needs a Rethink
The Designs Act, 2000 was enacted in a very different industrial and technological context. At the time, design protection was closely linked to tangible articles, physical manufacturing processes, and static visual features. Over the past two decades, however, innovation has become increasingly digital, dynamic, and immersive.
Today, consumers interact with products through graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, animations, screen-based layouts, and virtual environments. In many sectors such as fintech, gaming, healthcare, e-commerce, software, and digital services, these visual elements are not peripheral but central to product identity and consumer engagement. The emergence of augmented reality, virtual reality, and metaverse-based platforms further challenges traditional notions of what constitutes a “product” or an “article.”
The proposed amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 seek to address this disconnect. Their core objective is to modernise Indian design law so that it reflects how design is created, commercialised, and experienced today, while aligning India with international best practices and treaty obligations.
Expanding the Scope of Design Protection to Virtual Designs
One of the most consequential proposals is the extension of design protection to virtual designs. Internationally, there is now broad recognition of the independent aesthetic and commercial value of GUIs, icons, animations, and other screen-based designs. Jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Hong Kong have either implemented or proposed reforms to ensure that design laws keep pace with technological change.
India took an important step in this direction in 2021 by amending the Designs Rules to align with the Locarno Classification, which expressly includes GUIs and virtual designs. However, the substantive provisions of the Designs Act continue to be anchored in the concept of physical articles. As a result, uncertainty persists around whether purely digital or virtual designs enjoy full protection under Indian law.
The proposed amendments aim to resolve this by modernising the definitions of “design” and “article” to expressly cover digital, animated, and immersive designs, including movement, transition, and screen-based interfaces. Crucially, this would decouple design protection from the requirement of physical embodiment, allowing protection even where a design exists entirely in a virtual environment.
The impact of this reform would be significant. It would provide legal certainty to designers, technology companies, and digital-first businesses, encourage investment in digital aesthetics, and ensure that Indian design law remains relevant in an increasingly screen-driven economy. It would also reduce friction for Indian businesses seeking design protection abroad and for foreign applicants seeking protection in India.
Clarifying the Design – Copyright Interface
Another long-standing issue addressed by the proposed amendments is the uneasy interface between design law and copyright law. Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has been a frequent source of litigation, particularly in cases involving registrable but unregistered designs applied through industrial processes.
The uncertainty lies in when copyright protection ceases and whether design law should be the exclusive regime governing such works. Conflicting judicial interpretations have led to low predictability for businesses, increasing litigation risk and compliance costs.
The proposed amendment seeks to strike a pragmatic balance by allowing copyright protection for registrable but unregistered designs, while limiting the term to 15 years. This aligns the duration of protection with the commercial lifespan of designs and prevents the extension of long-term copyright monopolies over subject matter more appropriately governed by design law.
By clarifying the boundary between the two regimes, this reform would reduce disputes, improve legal certainty, and incentivise timely registration under the Designs Act.
Greater Procedural Flexibility: Grace Period and Deferred Publication
Modern product development cycles often involve early disclosures, sometimes unintentionally through online launches, investor pitches, crowdfunding platforms, pilot sales, and academic or industry presentations. Under the current framework, such disclosures can irreversibly destroy novelty, particularly harming start-ups, MSMEs, and first-time entrepreneurs who may lack early legal guidance.
The proposed introduction of a full 12-month grace period, consistent with global practice, would address this reality. It would allow designers to test market response and refine commercial strategy before committing to registration costs, while still requiring applications to be filed within a defined timeframe.
In addition, the proposal to allow deferred publication of registered designs for up to 30 months would introduce much needed flexibility. Immediate publication can expose designs to copying before a product is ready for market, particularly in sectors such as consumer electronics, software, and digital products where development cycles are long and capital-intensive.
Deferred publication would enable applicants to maintain confidentiality during the critical pre-launch phase, align legal protection with product rollout strategies, and reduce the risk of premature imitation. Safeguards such as surrender options and an innocent infringer defence would ensure that third-party interests are not unfairly prejudiced.
Strengthening Enforcement and Modernising Protection Terms
A legal right is only as strong as the remedies available to enforce it. While the Designs Act provides civil remedies, enforcement has often been undermined by the practical difficulty of proving actual damages. Infringement frequently occurs in fragmented or informal markets, making it challenging to quantify losses or trace profits.
The proposal to introduce statutory damages for willful design infringement represents a significant step forward. By allowing courts to award damages within a prescribed range, without requiring proof of actual loss, this reform would strengthen deterrence and improve predictability in enforcement outcomes. It would be particularly beneficial for start ups, MSMEs, and individual designers, for whom the cost and uncertainty of litigation often outweigh potential remedies.
The proposed amendments also seek to modernise the term of protection for registered designs. Currently, designs are protected for ten years, extendable by five years. To align with the Hague Agreement and better reflect commercial realities, a “5+5+5” structure is proposed, an initial five-year term followed by two optional five-year renewals.
This staged renewal system introduces flexibility and economic efficiency. Many designs, especially in fast-moving sectors such as fashion, packaging, and digital products, have relatively short commercial lifespans. Allowing such designs to lapse earlier reduces barriers to competition and promotes follow-on innovation, while still enabling commercially valuable designs to enjoy the full term of protection.
Improving Procedural Efficiency and Portfolio Management
The proposed amendments also focus on simplifying and streamlining design registration procedures. Allowing multiple designs in a single application, where they fall within the same class, would reduce filing costs and administrative burden. This is particularly relevant where products are developed with multiple design variants.
The introduction of divisional applications would further enhance flexibility, allowing applicants to split applications where objections arise or where multiple designs are claimed. This would prevent the rejection of an entire application due to issues with a single design and align Indian practice with international standards.
Integrating India into the Global Design System
Perhaps the most strategically important reforms are India’s proposed accession to the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. The Hague System allows applicants to seek design protection in multiple jurisdictions through a single international application filed with WIPO. For Indian designers and businesses, particularly exporters, this would significantly reduce costs, complexity, and administrative burden.
At the same time, accession would make India a more accessible and attractive jurisdiction for foreign design filings, integrating India more deeply into global design value chains. The Riyadh Treaty would further support this integration by simplifying procedural requirements, introducing time-relief mechanisms, and enhancing ease of doing business.
What These Reforms Mean for Design Law in India
Taken together, the proposed amendments represent a comprehensive recalibration of India’s design protection regime. They modernise substantive rights, introduce procedural flexibility, strengthen enforcement, and harmonise Indian law with global standards. For designers, start-ups, and MSMEs, the reforms promise lower entry barriers, reduced legal risk, and greater confidence in protecting and commercialising design assets.
More broadly, the amendments signal a shift in how design is viewed under Indian law not as a peripheral add-on, but as a core component of innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth.
Looking Ahead
The proposed amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 represent a decisive shift towards a future-ready design protection regime. By responding to technological change, commercial realities, and international developments, these reforms aim to ensure that Indian design law remains robust, balanced, and globally aligned. In doing so, they lay the legal foundation necessary to realise the vision of “Design in India, Design for the World,” positioning India as a leading hub for original design and creative excellence in the decades to come.
