Long post ahead!
PIIT on 23rd January 2026 had put out a concept note titled “Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000” and has invited comments from stakeholders, with the last day for submitting comments being 22nd February 2026. Some reforms are substantive, affecting the scope of design law. While others are administrative, intended to smooth out the difficulties that design applicants face. This post would be a quick analysis of some of the reforms being suggested. The reforms I will focus on in this post are 1, 3, 6 and 11 (listed below), as I believe they have the most significant effect on Indian design law. I have chosen not to discuss all the reforms to keep this post from becoming too long.
Summary of the reforms suggested in the concept note is as follows:
- Extending design protection to virtual designs by making material changes to the definition of ‘article’ and ‘design’.
- Introduction of a full grace period of 12 months.
- Introduction of the option of deferring publication of the design for up to 30 months.
- Introduction of the timeline relief provision in alignment with the Designs Law Treaty.
- Statutory Damages.
- Revision to the term of protection.
- Introduction of multiple designs filings (in a single application).
- Option for division of applications.
- Introduction of a Chapter on international registrations, enabling filings under the Hague
- .Other misc. changes aligned with DLT and Hague Agreement.
- Allowing applicants to retain copyright in unregistered designs for a period of 15 years.
Substantive Reforms and Their Possible Effects:
There are two major substantive reforms. First, an express legislative clarification that “GUIs, icons, animated characters, and immersive virtual environments” are eligible for protection under Section 2(a) and (d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (Act). As I had discussed earlier, there is uncertainty surrounding the registrability of GUI and virtual designs. The IPO has been inconsistent on whether GUIs are protectable under the Designs Act, with the current position being that they are not. The Calcutta High Court had recently taken the lead in clarifying the legal position on the registrability of GUI, but the concept note preempts this and resolves the uncertainty in favour of exclusionary protection for GUI and virtual designs under the Act.
The second change is a suggestion to dilute the effect of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and provide for copyright protection for unregistered designs, but limited to 15 years. Section 15(2) has been a point of debate and interpretation. Simply put, it allows unregistered designs to be applied to an article and reproduced up to 50 times without losing copyright protection.
This is to give effect to a policy preference that artistic works applied to articles through an industrial process must be registered under the Designs Act and thus enjoy limited protection, as opposed to the longer protection that artistic works generally enjoy under the Copyright Act. In other words. Section 15(2) has a channelling effect, requiring applicants to register artistic works applied to articles by an industrial process under the Designs Act to avoid losing exclusionary protection.
Both these reforms have a substantive effect on the scope of Design law. The first reform expands the universe of designs eligible for exclusionary protection. The second reform negates Section 15(2) by removing the channelling effect, giving the applicant the option to choose between copyright protection for unregistered designs or registration under the Designs Act.
Both these reforms taken together have the following outcomes: 1) GUIs and virtual designs are protectable, possibly both under the Copyright and Designs Act as artistic works and Designs, 2) The applicants now also have the option to elect — to either protect GUIs, virtual designs and others as artistic works under the Copyright Act or proceed for registration under the Designs Act.
Whither Justifications?
Any argument for reforms that alter the status quo should also include justifications for why the status quo is inadequate and, secondly, how the suggested reforms address the gaps that previously existed.
Unfortunately, the justifications provided for these sea changes are insufficient. To illustrate, the concept note points out that, globally, countries protect GUI and virtual designs, citing developments in the UK, Australia, and Hong Kong, and that 92% of countries worldwide do so. But this is a fact, not a justification. It is a logical leap to first state that “92% of the countries protect GUI and virtual designs” and then, from that fact alone, conclude that we must also provide similar protection. It also ignores another important fact: copyright protection exists for GUIs, icons, and animated characters.
Secondly, the reliance on the Locarno Treaty is also misplaced. I had pointed out earlier that Article 2 of the Treaty states that the agreement is of an administrative character and does not affect the scope of rights granted under national legislation.
Thirdly, providing a technologically neutral definition of the words “design” and “article” to expand the subject-matter scope to include GUIs and virtual designs is again the effect of the reform, not a justification in itself.
Fourthly, the concept note notes that Section 15(2) creates ambiguity regarding the scope of protection but fails to discuss numerous judicial precedents that have sought to clarify this section. But it has to be conceded that the reform being suggested is easier to administer and puts the ball in the court of the design proprietor/copyright owner, who can now elect. Yet the concept note lacks any clear reasoning on the consequences of diluting Section 15(2). It narrowly focuses on terms of protection, while ignoring the fact that Copyright and Design law are two distinct regimes which are structurally different.
Finally, one is left with the argument that the substantive reforms proposed will lead to innovation. Yet there is no clear explanation as to how this happens. The concept note treats the relationship between innovation and exclusionary rights as axiomatic. Similarly, it fails to take into account that GUIs are already protected under other existing IP regimes.
The concept note hence sidesteps some important questions: What are the innovation dynamics in the area of GUIs and virtual designs? Is any state intervention needed? What is the effect of copyright protection and the forms of protection that are available to GUIs and other virtual designs? Is the lack of protection under the Designs Act affecting innovation in GUI and virtual designs? If yes, how? What are the possible consequences of these reforms? What is the nature of access costs associated with these reforms?
Deferred Publication and Textile Goods:
A plethora of administrative reforms have been proposed, but I wish to focus on the most important one: deferring publication of registered designs. The concept note suggests increasing the deferment period up to 30 months, possibly from the date of filing. With the average time to obtain a grant being 135 days in 2025 (180 days in the previous 5 reports, with data starting from 2019), a design may be registered but not published. Currently, under Section 7 of the Designs Act, the Controller is required to publish registered designs as soon as possible. This serves as a public notice that a particular design has been registered.
The rationale for introducing publication deferment, beyond aligning with “international standards”, is the possibility that publication of the design could lead to imitation and piracy of the registered design before the launch of their products. Even though the concern is theoretically possible, no specific evidence of such instances has been provided. Likewise, it inadequately accounts for instances in which the exclusionary rights in registered designs persist without any public notice through the register.
Under Section 15 of the Design Act, the design holder is required to mark the article to which the design is being applied to indicate that the design is registered; failure to do so results in the loss of the right to recover any penalty or damages. The concept note has not discussed this section, and I presume it’s not affected by the reforms.
Rule 26 operationalises this section by providing the details as to how the marking is to be done and provides a specific exception that it does not apply to “textile goods in which the design is printed or woven, other than handkerchiefs”.
Thus, it is reasonable to conceive both Section 15 and Section 7 as playing a complementary role in ensuring adequate public notice is given about the fact that a particular design is registered. This also gains significance in light of the lack of transparency regarding Design prosecutions.
Things get a bit more worrying due to the exception provided under Rule 26 to textile goods. In light of the 30-month deferment, this leads to situations in which the public does not receive notice of design registrations under Sections 15 or 7 for designs applied to a particular class of goods, yet remain liable for infringement. This gets more problematic when the class of good in question accounts for the second-highest number of design filings in 2024-25.
According to the WIPO IP indicators 2025, textile and other accessories are among the top three sectors, accounting for almost half of the total design count in India. Similarly, the Annual report 24-25 shows that the second-highest number of design filings was under Class 2 (Articles of clothing and haberdashery). Class 02 goods are among the top 3 classes attracting the highest number of design filings for the years 2020-2024 (as per WIPO IP indicators reports for the respective years).
WIPO IP indicators 2025, pg. 118
IPO report 24-25 pg. 50
Thus, in light of all this, the publication deferment becomes doubly problematic in the context of textile goods.
I am unsure as to what extent the phrase “in which the design is printed or woven” with respect to textile goods restricts the scope of this exception. Still, it does not change the issue of the lack of public notice regarding textile goods.
Deferred publication -> Deferred Infringement claims?
The concerns of design applicants, as noted in the concept note, are that publication post-registration leads to imitation because potential imitators can see the journal and start copying their designs; hence, deferred publication enables them to time publication with the product launch. Following the above logic, it makes absolute sense to defer any infringement claims until publication. According to the concept note, a potential imitator cannot copy a design unless it is published. Any alleged copying that occurs before a design is published could result from independent creation and/or ignorance of the fact that the design in question is registered. It seems unreasonable to hold an infringer prima facie liable for infringement, especially when the infringement or imitation arises from ignorance, which itself is a consequence of the reform being suggested. I have also already shown how this issue gains salience in the context of textile goods.
The defence of innocent infringement, as a possible attempt to address the lack of public notice, is inadequate because it does not alter the costs and risks of litigation faced by an innocent infringer. It merely gives him an ex post affirmative defence, which kicks in after the litigation costs (at least partially) have been internalised by the alleged infringer. In conclusion, it does not materially change the position of the innocent infringer, while it stacks the game in favour of the design applicant, who appears to have his cake and eat it too!
Revising the Term of Protection :
One of the noteworthy reforms proposed in the concept note is the revision of the term of protection. At present, Section 11 of the Act provides a ten-year term for a registered design, extendable by a single renewal of five years. This renewal requirement, which is akin to a formality, is not novel. It operates as a legal mechanism that ties the duration of an exclusionary right to the private value it generates. Where the expected private value of the right exceeds the cost of renewal, proprietors are likely to renew; where it does not, the right is allowed to lapse.
This suggested reform assumes greater significance in light of persistently high design grant rates over the past five years (as reflected in WIPO IP Indicators) and the concept note’s proposal to expand the subject matter eligible for design protection. Together, these developments are likely to result in a substantial increase in the number of registered designs. A shift to a 5 + 5 + 5 renewal framework, requiring renewal every five years, would dampen the effect of subject-matter expansion (which has been proposed without justification) by forcing proprietors to periodically reassess the private value of their registered designs. Designs that no longer justify the cost of renewal would lapse earlier, reducing packets of exclusivity and opening up spaces for competition. Importantly, such a renewal structure also reflects that the average life of a design in 2025 stands at approximately 5.1 years (WIPO IP Indicators 2025).
In conclusion, the reform scheme attempts at “balance” but ends up making changes that largely benefit design proprietors. This is not problematic in itself, but when such reforms at “balance” are not justified, it ends up being faith-based rather than fact-based.
